Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Williams

Dino Proteins Proved To Be Original Material!

Recommended Posts

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

 

(link)

 

Note this hilarious quote:

 

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

 

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino! However, here is the funny part. Since there was detectable C-14 (a LOT of C14!) they blamed this on contamination because 24K years ago just doesn't fit their dino timeline!! :P:blink:

 

Check out this Science Magazine article - look at the graph that shows collagen not being able to survive more than 10K years in the conditions where the bones were found (Hell Creek Montana). Oops. Sorry evo-faithful...

 

Prediction: The malleable hypothesis of evolution will soon cause evos to change their story and claim some dinos survived in isolated niches in a more recent epoch... How else do they get out of this dilemma?

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

 

(link)

 

Note this hilarious quote:

 

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

 

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino! However, here is the funny part. Since there was detectable C-14 (a LOT of C14!) they blamed this on contamination because 24K years ago just doesn't fit their dino timeline!!  :o  :blink:

 

Check out this Science Magazine article - look at the graph that shows collagen not being able to survive more than 10K years in the conditions where the bones were found (Hell Creek Montana). Oops. Sorry evo-faithful...

 

Prediction: The malleable hypothesis of evolution will soon cause evos to change their story and claim some dinos survived in isolated niches in a more recent epoch... How else do they get out of this dilemma?

 

Fred

71994[/snapback]

I like the bacteria thing--they must have gotten full and left before they got to the collagen. :P

 

The prediction is probable. Someone influential will give a presentation at a convention. Hey, you think it might go like "the ones that didn't turn into birds, stayed dinosaurs, and finally died within the last 30,000 years." :D

 

Just shows people believe what they want to believe. They'll still get on here and ask us how we could be creationist, in light of the "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. They can only say this because they willfully ignore each contrary piece (like this) of evidence--one at a time.

 

It's like in my business, I can record my sales, but ignore my expenses. If I don't record my expenses, then I will begin to wonder why my "overwhelming sales" aren't producing the expected profits. The expenses are there whether I put them down on paper or not. It's the same when you don't weigh contrary evidence--it's still there whether you acknowledge it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

 

(link)

 

Note this hilarious quote:

 

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

 

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino!

71994[/snapback]

Hi Fred Williams

 

Didn't they say they did find evidence of bacteria to explain the C14?

 

Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex).

Not sure how this affects the result (?)

 

Cheers - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred Williams

 

Didn't they say they did find evidence of bacteria to explain the C14?

Not sure how this affects the result (?)

 

Cheers - S.

72004[/snapback]

The C14 found is relatively speaking a lot of C14, obviously they know this or they would have touted their evidence for "contamination". I just love the irony though. They went through a painstaking, well-designed experiment to prove the collagen was original (no contamination), yet speculate the observed C14, which puts a max age of 24K on the dino, was the result of contamination! Speculation without sufficient evidence was the same thing all those scientists were doing by claiming (hoping) the T-Rex blood vessels were the result of contamination. LOL. At least they proved the creationists correct that the collagen was original, confirming yet again the Biblical account. If they can just admit that the C14 we find buried all over the world refutes their old earth view. We should not find C14 in things that are supposed to be millions of years old like oil, natural gas, diamonds, yet we virtually always do find it. Waz up with that? The Bible is right yet again.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't get is how can they explain the blood vessels alone? Forget about the C14, wouldn't blood vessels deteriorate quite rapidly, faster than the C14? Are they trying to say that contamination caused the blood vessels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't get is how can they explain the blood vessels alone? Forget about the C14, wouldn't blood vessels deteriorate quite rapidly, faster than the C14? Are they trying to say that contamination caused the blood vessels?

72018[/snapback]

Sadly, yes. Not only do bacterial biofilms produce structures identical to red blood cells, but the blood vessels, too. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, yes. Not only do bacterial biofilms produce structures identical to red blood cells, but the blood vessels, too. :)

72028[/snapback]

Perhaps they will start saying that biofilms can fossilise to produce a bone-like structure... and then use that claim to say that the entire fossil is false :blink::):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....claiming (hoping) the T-Rex blood vessels were the result of contamination. LOL. At least they proved the creationists correct that the collagen was original, confirming yet again the Biblical account. If they can just admit that the C14 we find buried all over the world refutes their old earth view. We should not find C14 in things that are supposed to be millions of years old like oil, natural gas, diamonds, yet we virtually always do find it. Waz up with that? The Bible is right yet again.

72016[/snapback]

Could you post more information on this: fossils disproving old ages?!

I would like to do a line up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you post more information on this: fossils disproving old ages?!

I would like to do a line up here.

72046[/snapback]

Fossils are argued to acquire contamination from water absorption into the rocks, but there is no way to get contamination into a diamond and they are believed to be billions of years old.

 

 

 

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...WvKvwJA&cad=rja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossils are argued to acquire contamination from water absorption into the rocks, but there is no way to get contamination into a diamond and they are believed to be billions of years old.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...WvKvwJA&cad=rja

72055[/snapback]

Hi

 

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

 

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

 

Regards - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

 

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

 

Regards - S.

72059[/snapback]

That is hardly an explanation, several problems with this:

 

1) Often there is TOO MUCH C14 to attribute to contamination (as is the case in the study above).

2) No matter how careful the tester is, C14 invariably shows up in things like oil, natural gas, coal, etc that is supposed to be millions of years old.

3) Diamonds have very strong lattice bonds, so it is highly unlikely C14 can get inside a diamond via biological contamination.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

 

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

 

Regards - S.

72059[/snapback]

 

Are we to believe that scientists have been dumbfounded for years now and all they had to do was figure out outside sources? :) The truth is that the blank is run and then the measurable background is then subtracted from the sample, which still yields measurable C-14.

 

 

Example:

 

Blank - 0.02%

 

Sample - 1.73%

 

 

1.73% - .02% = 1.71%

 

 

The 1.71 figure comes after the blank and background measurements. Scientists have been subtracting background from sample readings since carbon dating began and they still find measurable levels in everything they have ever tested. So, they have to explain source contamination and with diamonds they can not.

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

 

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

That is hardly an explanation, several problems with this:

 

1) Often there is TOO MUCH C14 to attribute to contamination (as is the case in the study above).

2) No matter how careful the tester is, C14 invariably shows up in things like oil, natural gas, coal, etc that is supposed to be millions of years old.

3) Diamonds have very strong lattice bonds, so it is highly unlikely C14 can get inside a diamond via biological contamination.

 

Fred

72060[/snapback]

Hi Fred

 

Nevertheless, this appears to be the standard explanation that has been in the AMS-related literature for decades, and that's why its standard procedure to process blanks to control for the background, as noted here.

 

Regarding your points:

 

1. If you are referring to the paper by Taylor and Southon (2007), they specifically disagreed that the C14 is too much to be contamination. Instead, they carefully noted that the distribution of isotopes in diamonds was uneven (reported as delta C13, which varied from -23 to +4 between different diamond samples). If the AMS was measuring C14 from the diamond, rather than from the background, then we would expect C14 to vary proportionately to delta C13. But C14 did not vary proportionately to delta C13. The only conclusion supported by this evidence is that the C14 readings are from background sources, not from within the diamonds.

 

2. Yes, you are correct. C14 even shows up when they run the AMS with a completely empty sample holder. That's because of the well-known issue of background C14.

 

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:

(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample

(2) Combustion/acidification background

(3) Graphitization background

(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background

(5) Storage background

(6) Instrument background

 

Regards - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we to believe that scientists have been dumbfounded for years now and all they had to do was figure out outside sources? :)  The truth is that the blank is run and then the measurable background is then subtracted from the sample, which still yields measurable C-14.

Example:

 

Blank - 0.02%

 

Sample - 1.73%

1.73% - .02% = 1.71%

The 1.71 figure comes after the blank and background measurements. Scientists have been subtracting background from sample readings since carbon dating began and they still find measurable levels in everything they have ever tested. So, they have to explain source contamination and with diamonds they can not.

Enjoy.

72069[/snapback]

Hi jason777

 

Good question. I don't expect you to believe scientists have been dumbfounded for years.

 

Processing the blank attempts to control for some but not all possible sources of false readings of C14. For example, if the sample was exposed to C14 during storage and handling outside the AMS lab, this would show up as a reading above background. They do try to expose the blank to the same processes as the real sample (e.g. combustion, graphitisation etc), but some statistical variation is also to be expected.

 

Also, please see my previous post where Taylor and Southon measured delta C13 versus C14, leading to the conclusion that the C14 was not actually inside the diamond sample itself.

 

Bear in mind that the radiocarbon "ages" determined from the diamonds were around 65000 to 80000 years, beyond the limit of reliability of the method, and representing about one C14 atom per 10^15 regular carbon atoms. These are very tiny trace amounts, much smaller than would be expected if the sample came from something alive less than 20000 years ago.

 

Regards - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:

(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample

(2) Combustion/acidification background

(3) Graphitization background

(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background

(5) Storage background

(6) Instrument background

 

Regards - S.

72072[/snapback]

Or?

 

(7) in situ C14

 

Can you not see the scientific bias? (7) is not listed by the scientist but it is a real possibility that needs to be addressed. But it's not. So if the truth is (7) then it will never be discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or?

 

(7) in situ C14

 

Can you not see the scientific bias?  (7) is not listed by the scientist but it is a real possibility that needs to be addressed.  But it's not.  So if the truth is (7) then it will never be discovered.

72077[/snapback]

Hi performedge

 

I don't believe the scientists are biased. The possibility of genuine C14 within the sample itself was given serious consideration, and in fact it is the first item on the list: "(1) pseudo C14-free sample" - meaning a sample which was thought to be free of C14, but its actually not.

 

Cheers - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seejay this is a general question about radioisotope dating...

 

How does knowing the rate of decay and the current amount of isotope result in getting an age, without first having an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and calculating the time via the rate of decay...

 

If an initial concentration is required, then how has scientists been able to work out this concentration without making assumptions, (since basing the entire process on assumptions would destroy its validity)

 

EDIT: Actually assumptions are used sometimes, (like in statistics the fundamental sampling assumption)... However generally these assumptions are realistic, as in the case of the example I gave, this assumption just assumes that the samples used in an experiment are randomly picked.

 

Hence if assumptions are used, how do scientists justify them, and are they major assumptions or just a minor one like the example I gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seejay this is a general question about radioisotope dating...

 

How does knowing the rate of decay and the current amount of isotope result in getting an age, without first having an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and calculating the time via the rate of decay...

 

If an initial concentration is required, then how has scientists been able to work out this concentration without making assumptions, (since basing the entire process on assumptions would destroy its validity)

72080[/snapback]

Hi gilbo12345

 

I'm not an expert, just an interested layman. My understanding is that the initial concentrations of isotopes used for dating are not assumed, but are based on measurements.

 

C14 dating is only done on samples that were once living things. C14 is produced in the atmosphere and remains at a roughly constant concentration (one C14 atom per trillion normal C atoms). Living things constantly exchange carbon with the atmosphere, so the concentration of C14 in their tissues stays the same as the atmosphere while they are alive. But when they die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and since C14 is radioactive it starts to decay with a half-life of 5730 years.

 

Thus, the initial concentration of C14 in the organism at the time of death is the same as that of the atmosphere. So if you measure a sample of organic material that has one C14 atom per two trillion normal C atoms, this means the organism died 5730 years ago.

 

There are also other methods like isochrons which are more complicated, which you can read about here.

 

But just to focus on C14 dating, dates derived from the method have been carefully cross-checked against a very large number of independent age measurements, like tree rings, layers in ice cores, seasonal layered sediments in the bottom of lakes, the growth of limestone cave formations, coral growth rings, and the like. See e.g. here. So any initial assumptions of the C14 method when it was proposed in 1949 (e.g. concentration of atmospheric C14 in the past) have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method.

 

Cheers - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gilbo12345

 

I'm not an expert, just an interested layman. My understanding is that the initial concentrations of isotopes used for dating are not assumed, but are based on measurements.

 

C14 dating is only done on samples that were once living things. C14 is produced in the atmosphere and remains at a roughly constant concentration (one C14 atom per trillion normal C atoms). Living things constantly exchange carbon with the atmosphere, so the concentration of C14 in their tissues stays the same as the atmosphere while they are alive. But when they die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and since C14 is radioactive it starts to decay with a half-life of 5730 years.

 

Thus, the initial concentration of C14 in the organism at the time of death is the same as that of the atmosphere. So if you measure a sample of organic material that has one C14 atom per two trillion normal C atoms, this means the organism died 5730 years ago.

 

There are also other methods like isochrons which are more complicated, which you can read about here.

 

But just to focus on C14 dating, dates derived from the method have been carefully cross-checked against a very large number of independent age measurements, like tree rings, layers in ice cores, seasonal layered sediments in the bottom of lakes, the growth of limestone cave formations, coral growth rings, and the like. See e.g. here. So any initial assumptions of the C14 method when it was proposed in 1949 (e.g. concentration of atmospheric C14 in the past) have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method.

 

Cheers - S.

72083[/snapback]

Can you please state what measurements are taken to confirm the initial concentration... In my mind there are none, since no scientist lived at that time to take samples and test them, and record the iniital concentration... This can be said for any other radioactive isotope for all other radioactive dating... IF you cannot define what measurements are taken then we must conclude that it is an assumption.

 

Yes living things exchange carbon with the atmosphere, (which we get in turn from plants and animals), you suggesting are that the concentration levels are relatively the same throughout the biosphere? Just to let you know, this is an assumption and a very large one at that. How is this assumption justified?

 

All these other methods of dating are assuming that there is a constant rate... Yet this assumption is not logical...

 

Trees can form more than one ring in a year

Coral growth is dependant on the creature inside, which is dependant on its environment. Considering the state of the oceans today, I'd assume they are working slower than is normal.

Limestone caves are formed from water yes? So the rate of rainfall would determine the speed, how is this constant?

 

So again, scientists let assumption-based science take to the fore with nothing to substantiate their assumptions.... Except that when all these assumptions are group together they give you relatively the same time line... (of course they will since the are assumed to what the experimenter believes)

 

Here is another thought. If life is a continuation of atoms being used for different processes, which is linked to the claim that we are "space dust"... then in reality we should see no C14 at all since it is believed that all atoms were created via big bang and the age should start from there.... If these carbon atoms have existed for billions of years, (despite what form) then there should be no C14 left in the entire galaxy. Or do we assume that when a person eats food some of the carbon somehow turns into C14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred

 

Nevertheless, this appears to be the standard explanation that has been in the AMS-related literature for decades, and that's why its standard procedure to process blanks to control for the background, as noted here.

 

Regarding your points:

 

1. If you are referring to the paper by Taylor and Southon (2007), they specifically disagreed that the C14 is too much to be contamination. Instead, they carefully noted that the distribution of isotopes in diamonds was uneven (reported as delta C13, which varied from -23 to +4 between different diamond samples). If the AMS was measuring C14 from the diamond, rather than from the background, then we would expect C14 to vary proportionately to delta C13. But C14 did not vary proportionately to delta C13. The only conclusion supported by this evidence is that the C14 readings are from background sources, not from within the diamonds.

 

2. Yes, you are correct. C14 even shows up when they run the AMS with a completely empty sample holder. That's because of the well-known issue of background C14.

 

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:

(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample

(2) Combustion/acidification background

(3) Graphitization background

(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background

(5) Storage background

(6) Instrument background

 

Regards - S.

72072[/snapback]

Do you have any web evidence of what this paper says?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please state what measurements are taken to confirm the initial concentration... In my mind there are none, since no scientist lived at that time to take samples and test them, and record the iniital concentration... This can be said for any other radioactive isotope for all other radioactive dating... IF you cannot define what measurements are taken then we must conclude that it is an assumption.

Hi again gilbo12345

 

Well, as I said: "...any initial assumptions of the C14 method ... have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method." So of course you're correct that the scientific method is limited to measurements they can make today i.e. they don't have time machines.

 

Nevertheless, evolutionist scientists take the approach that, if assumption X about the past is true, we should be able to take measurement Y today, and if X is false, the measurement taken today will be something else. This is the sort of approach e.g. forensic scientists take as well, to test hypotheses about past events.

 

Following this logic, scientists have compared ages from C14 versus ages from numerous other methods. If the assumptions behind C14 dating are correct (atmospheric C14 concentrations, half-lives etc), then we would expect a good correlation between C14 ages and the other methods. And in fact, the correlation is very, very good. For this reason, scientists believe their assumptions are valid, within the limits of the scientific method:

 

Posted Image

 

Yes living things exchange carbon with the atmosphere, (which we get in turn from plants and animals), you suggesting are that the concentration levels are relatively the same throughout the biosphere? Just to let you know, this is an assumption and a very large one at that. How is this assumption justified?

C14 concentrations have been measured roughly the same all over the world since scientists began looking into this in the 50s. There certainly are variations - Wikipedia has more info on this here in the section "Carbon exchange reservoir".

 

All these other methods of dating are assuming that there is a constant rate... Yet this assumption is not logical...

 

Trees can form more than one ring in a year

Coral growth is dependant on the creature inside, which is dependant on its environment. Considering the state of the oceans today, I'd assume they are working slower than is normal.

Limestone caves are formed from water yes? So the rate of rainfall would determine the speed, how is this constant?

You're right, logic would not dictate that the rates of formation of independent things like coral, tree rings, limstone caves and sediment layers must necessarily be constant. Instead, the rate of formation is inferred from circumstantial evidence.

 

For example, coral growth rings are currently observed to occur daily and the reasons for this are understood on the basis of their physiology (ie. they produce their layers mostly during daylight). Similarly, some sediment layers are currently observed to alternate between an organic-rich layer in spring & summer, and an organic-poor layer in the colder seasons. When scientists find tens of thousands of such layers in the same pattern, they conclude that the lower layers were formed via the same process as the upper layers which they can directly observe in modern times i.e. that that a pair of organic-rich and organic-poor layers represents one year.

 

Here is another thought. If life is a continuation of atoms being used for different processes, which is linked to the claim that we are "space dust"... then in reality we should see no C14 at all since it is believed that all atoms were created via big bang and the age should start from there.... If these carbon atoms have existed for billions of years, (despite what form) then there should be no C14 left in the entire galaxy. Or do we assume that when a person eats food some of the carbon somehow turns into C14?

72086[/snapback]

Again, I'm not an expert, but the evolutionist explanation is that the C14 isotope is being continually produced in the earth's upper atmosphere. Cosmic rays approaching the earth transform into neutrons, which interact with nitrogen, converting the nitrogen into carbon-14 plus a proton. The production of C14 in the upper atmosphere has apparently reached equilibrium with the decay of C14 (back into N), so the overall concentration of C14 remains roughly constant.

 

Kind regards - SeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again gilbo12345

 

1. Well, as I said: "...any initial assumptions of the C14 method ... have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method." So of course you're correct that the scientific method is limited to measurements they can make today i.e. they don't have time machines.

 

2. Nevertheless, evolutionist scientists take the approach that, if assumption X about the past is true, we should be able to take measurement Y today, and if X is false, the measurement taken today will be something else. This is the sort of approach e.g. forensic scientists take as well, to test hypotheses about past events.

 

3. Following this logic, scientists have compared ages from C14 versus ages from numerous other methods. If the assumptions behind C14 dating are correct (atmospheric C14 concentrations, half-lives etc), then we would expect a good correlation between C14 ages and the other methods. And in fact, the correlation is very, very good. For this reason, scientists believe their assumptions are valid, within the limits of the scientific method:

 

4. Posted Image

You're right, logic would not dictate that the rates of formation of independent things like coral, tree rings, limstone caves and sediment layers must necessarily be constant. Instead, the rate of formation is inferred from circumstantial evidence.

 

5. Again, I'm not an expert, but the evolutionist explanation is that the C14 isotope is being continually produced in the earth's upper atmosphere.  Cosmic rays approaching the earth transform into neutrons, which interact with nitrogen, converting the nitrogen into carbon-14 plus a proton. The production of C14 in the upper atmosphere has apparently reached equilibrium with the decay of C14 (back into N), so the overall concentration of C14 remains roughly constant.

 

Kind regards - SeeJay

72092[/snapback]

Thanks

 

1. Thanks for agreeing that there is no initial concentration, and that there is no empirical sure-fire process to obtain a correct reading.

 

2. Actually no their assumptions are not valid, since they have nop empirical evidence to back themselves up. How is it possible to claim that everything remained constant for billions of years, as I said before this is a HUGE assumption, and one that is not empirically justified.

 

3. Yes they believe their assumptions are valid, but no it is not according to the scientific method... You cannot assume data

 

4. Thank you for agreeing that these tests are based on the ludicrus assumption that everything remains constant... It is inferred, but wether it is inferred correctly remains to be seen. The only way to validate the coral claims is to video it over a year.. Believing that one layer = 1 year is suspect, what evidence is there to suggest this? Or is this also assumed..

 

5. How can scientists know if C14 production and decay are in equilbrium.. This is a HUGE pill to swallow and one that will require empirical evidence, (which will be nigh impossible to obtain), hence I am at a loss as to why this conclusion will be stated with absolute certainty by the scientists.

 

 

All I see here is scientists making assumptions to support their own worldview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

1. Thanks for agreeing that there is no initial concentration, and that there is no empirical sure-fire process to obtain a correct reading.

 

2. Actually no their assumptions are not valid, since they have nop empirical evidence to back themselves up. How is it possible to claim that everything remained constant for billions of years, as I said before this is a HUGE assumption, and one that is not empirically justified.

 

3. Yes they believe their assumptions are valid, but no it is not according to the scientific method... You cannot assume data

Hi gilbo12345

 

1. Sure, no empirical method is expected to be perfect.

 

2 & 3. With regard to C14 dating the period in question is from around 50000 years ago up to the present.

 

Whether the assumptions (C14 levels, decay rates, sedimentation rates etc) are huge, empirically unjustified or ludicrous I'm not in an expert position to judge. Personally, I don't see that its much of a stretch to hypothesise that such processes, which we can study and understand in detail in the present, probably worked similarly in the past.

 

The more important question is, I think, can such assumptions about the past be validated by making measurements in the present, as the scientists have purported to do with C14 dating, in the same way as forensic scientists do? As I said above, this method involves identifying a measurement you can make in the present that should be Y if your assumption is true, and Z if your assumption is false.

 

Would you agree this method, whilst not perfect, can be used to validate assumptions within the limits of the scientific method?

 

4. Thank you for agreeing that these tests are based on the ludicrus assumption that everything remains constant... It is inferred, but wether it is inferred correctly remains to be seen. The only way to validate the coral claims is to video it over a year.. Believing that one layer = 1 year is suspect, what evidence is there to suggest this? Or is this also assumed.

I understand evolutionists use two kinds of evidence to infer the regularity of these processes.

 

The first is to obtain a detailed understanding of the process itself. For example, studies of some lake sediments show alternate layers being laid down once a year in the present day, with a layer rich in organic material being deposited in the warm seasons, and a layer poor in organics being deposited in the cold seasons. This makes sense as during the warm seasons there is more growth, flowers are blooming etc. The inference, then, is that if many thousands of layers are found beneath the ones observed in the present day, having the same appearance, made of the same materials, and in the same location, then they were caused by the same process, and thus each pair of layers represents an alternation between spring/summer and autumn/winter i.e. a year.

 

The second kind of evidence is correlation. If different methods of counting years in the past, based on different and independent processes (like radioactive decay, sedimentation rates, tree rings etc) give the same ages for the same samples, the inference is that those regular processes we observe today really do remain regular into the past. Numerous correlations are shown in the chart in my previous post. The alternative hypothesis - that these processes are not regular in the past - logically implies that the correlations have occurred purely by chance, which due to the number of different methods is extraordinarily unlikely in a statistical sense.

 

5. How can scientists know if C14 production and decay are in equilbrium.. This is a HUGE pill to swallow and one that will require empirical evidence, (which will be nigh impossible to obtain), hence I am at a loss as to why this conclusion will be stated with absolute certainty by the scientists.

All I see here is scientists making assumptions to support their own worldview

72093[/snapback]

I don't know the exact answer to your question. I believe the scientists who have looked into this rely on the correlations with other methods to validate this assumption, such as those shown above. They also apparently rely on other correlative methods like measuring atmospheric isotopes in air bubbles in ice cores, which line up well, as I understand it, with various parameters of the earth's orbit (e.g. precession of the equinoxes, a 26000 year cycle).

 

Cheers - S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding your points:

 

1. If you are referring to the paper by Taylor and Southon (2007), they specifically disagreed that the C14 is too much to be contamination. Instead, they carefully noted that the distribution of isotopes in diamonds was uneven (reported as delta C13, which varied from -23 to +4 between different diamond samples). If the AMS was measuring C14 from the diamond, rather than from the background, then we would expect C14 to vary proportionately to delta C13. But C14 did not vary proportionately to delta C13. The only conclusion supported by this evidence is that the C14 readings are from background sources, not from within the diamonds.

 

2. Yes, you are correct. C14 even shows up when they run the AMS with a completely empty sample holder. That's because of the well-known issue of background C14.

 

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:

(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample

(2) Combustion/acidification background

(3) Graphitization background

(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background

(5) Storage background

(6) Instrument background

 

Regards - S.

72072[/snapback]

SeeJay, you've inserted el foot into el mouth again, due to more selective reading on your part (I wonder if you have even read the article). Their article actually confirmed C14 in diamonds was NOT due to contamination; that is, they confirmed work by creation scientists that Diamonds have C-14 that can't be explained away by contamination.

 

"Natural diamond samples (N = 14) from different sources within rock formations with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma yielded a range of currents (110–250 μA 12C− where filamentous graphite typically yields 150 μA 12C−) and apparent 14C ages (64.9 ± 0.4 ka BP [0.00031 ± 0.00002 fm] to 80.0 ± 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 ± 0.00001 fm]).... At this time, it is not clear to us what factors might be involved in the greater variability in the apparent 14C concentrations exhibited in individual diamonds as opposed to splits from a single natural diamond."

 

You know, the great irony in this is that you haven't even bothered to address the topic of this thread, the overwhelming evidence that these dino bones have original collagen that was not the result of contamination, and hence must be very young, no older than 10K years according to secular scientists own peer-reviewed articles.

 

SeeJay, methinks your mind is made up despite any evidence presented your way.

 

Fred

 

EDIT: Just found this article by Dr Baumgardner refuting a silly post at T.O.:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...e-contamination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gilbo12345

 

1. Sure, no empirical method is expected to be perfect.

 

2. Whether the assumptions (C14 levels, decay rates, sedimentation rates etc) are huge, empirically unjustified or ludicrous I'm not in an expert position to judge. Personally, I don't see that its much of a stretch to hypothesise that such processes, which we can study and understand in detail in the present, probably worked similarly in the past.

 

3. The more important question is, I think, can such assumptions about the past be validated by making measurements in the present, as the scientists have purported to do with C14 dating, in the same way as forensic scientists do? As I said above, this method involves identifying a measurement you can make in the present that should be Y if your assumption is true, and Z if your assumption is false.

 

4. Would you agree this method, whilst not perfect, can be used to validate assumptions within the limits of the scientific method?

 

5. I don't know the exact answer to your question. I believe the scientists who have looked into this rely on the correlations with other methods to validate this assumption, such as those shown above. They also apparently rely on other correlative methods like measuring atmospheric isotopes in air bubbles in ice cores, which line up well, as I understand it, with various parameters of the earth's orbit (e.g. precession of the equinoxes, a 26000 year cycle).

 

 

6. The first is to obtain a detailed understanding of the process itself. For example, studies of some lake sediments show alternate layers being laid down once a year in the present day, with a layer rich in organic material being deposited in the warm seasons, and a layer poor in organics being deposited in the cold seasons. This makes sense as during the warm seasons there is more growth, flowers are blooming etc. The inference, then, is that if many thousands of layers are found beneath the ones observed in the present day, having the same appearance, made of the same materials, and in the same location, then they were caused by the same process, and thus each pair of layers represents an alternation between spring/summer and autumn/winter i.e. a year.

 

7. The second kind of evidence is correlation. If different methods of counting years in the past, based on different and independent processes (like radioactive decay, sedimentation rates, tree rings etc) give the same ages for the same samples, the inference is that those regular processes we observe today really do remain regular into the past. Numerous correlations are shown in the chart in my previous post. The alternative hypothesis - that these processes are not regular in the past - logically implies that the correlations have occurred purely by chance, which due to the number of different methods is extraordinarily unlikely in a statistical sense.

 

 

 

Cheers - S.

72094[/snapback]

There is alot to cover here :)

 

1. This isn't an empirical method... Assumptions are not empirical

 

2. If you feel it isn't empirically unjustified, please show some empirical evidence, not tainted with assumptions. If you cannot then it is empirically unjustified.

 

3. No, because some things change... and there is no way to account for that

 

4. No, because assumptions are assumptions no matter what you try to claim them as. What can and what is assumed is totally dependant on the scientist, hence it is subject to bias as well.

 

5. As mentioned in 4. assumptions are subject to bias hence correlating lots of assumption based data, (that has been subjected to the same bias), does nothing.

 

6. Perhaps they should first do proper investigation and work out the right process. Sedimentation occurs sideways, as has been proven by field trials and empirical experiments... Look for Drama in the Rocks.

 

7. As said in 4 and 5 correlating multiple points of data that have been based on assumptions and has been subject to bias has no explanatory value. Empirical evidence is what the scientific method requires.. Until then all these "scientific methods" are unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms