I agree apart from I don't have faith, only you do.
Learning Genesis
- Thread starter TubbyTubby
- Start date
- Status
You have faith in something. You don't have faith in God, but you have faith in something. Your intellect, education, beliefs, I don't know where your faith is, but you have faith in something. Do you have faith in your own existence?
That must be a consequence of my sad twisted mind vs your pure logic.
Sorry but once more that is not what was plainly said (I said your spin was a sad twist)...and you interpreted it into what you thought it means trying to misrepresent what this says to mean something tainted at best (where does that come from Tubby....are you only associating with people who speak in innuendo or something)....
Re-read...The spin was twisted (not your mind) and the explanation was logical only (thus the word purely) but I NEVER said I possess pure logic just that I only used logic,,,
So cannot you see even this comment is in itself a twisted form of what I said?
I sense an underlying emotionalism in your thinking process...almost every post I have presented merely begs one to reason...like for example look only at the data to form a theory....you find some bones in one place and another somewhere else...they bear out the testimony they are of two different creatures, but then to make one's preconceived theory appear to be plausible you mix them together claiming they are of the same individual creature (at best this is fraudulence...this would be frankenLuc)...this is the same mix and match deception technique used on Piltdown who you mentioned...also true of Dubois' Java man and Heidelberg man...intentionally mix and matched deceptions are not established OR scientific...certainly not honest or objective...can;t you admit this?
Sorry but once more that is not what was plainly said (I said your spin was a sad twist)...and you interpreted it into what you thought it means trying to misrepresent what this says to mean something tainted at best (where does that come from Tubby....are you only associating with people who speak in innuendo or something)....
Re-read...The spin was twisted (not your mind) and the explanation was logical only (thus the word purely) but I NEVER said I possess pure logic just that I only used logic,,,
So cannot you see even this comment is in itself a twisted form of what I said?
I sense an underlying emotionalism in your thinking process...almost every post I have presented merely begs one to reason...like for example look only at the data to form a theory....you find some bones in one place and another somewhere else...they bear out the testimony they are of two different creatures, but then to make one's preconceived theory appear to be plausible you mix them together claiming they are of the same individual creature (at best this is fraudulence...this would be frankenLuc)...this is the same mix and match deception technique used on Piltdown who you mentioned...also true of Dubois' Java man and Heidelberg man...intentionally mix and matched deceptions are not established OR scientific...certainly not honest or objective...can;t you admit this?
Tubby Tubby, you say of radiometric dating that it is "well proven beyond doubt..." My doubt is to do with the starting points for the relative ratios of isotopes. Can you (or anybody) supply proof of the original ratio of C-12 :C-14 or the ratios existing 10K years ago? I am not arguing or even doubting the fundamental idea behind radiometric dating, I only question the basis for the adopted values used as a starting point. Let me explain this in as simple terms as I can.
We can accurately measure the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in today's atmosphere.
We can know the half life of C-14.
We can (only Assume) what the ratio of C-12 to C-14 was 10K years ago.
From these data we can calculate the age of a biological sample...here is the rub, provided;
1. our assumed starting point is accurate.
2. there has been no unknown non linearity in the ration of C-12 to C-14 over the intervening years.
Can you get rid of that 'red font' uncertainty and replace it with exact authoritative data as measured in a UKAS accredited laboratory?
Can you supply figures for these 10k year old measurements that are worthy of being honoured with the 'Kitemark'?
If yes,...I'll 'sit squashed'
If no,....My objections stand as valid.
On a lighter note you might like the following:
http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/glad-our-sun-doesnt-do-this.32256/
and also;
http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/this-has-been-my-favorite-since-about-1960.32255/
Just for fun…and there is a reason for this….
Science (Vol. 141, pg. 636), revealed that by the Carbon 14 dating alone, “tissues from living mollusks“ were demonstrated to be “dead for over 3,000 years“, while on the other hand, one Egyptian mummy historically known to be about 2000 year old, could not yield a date older than 250 years, and then again lava samples from Hawaii clearly showed what we know to be 200 year old lava formations tested out to be approximately 3,000,000 years old! Accurate? Not! This is why other methods are employed.
Early in the last century a single c-14 test was done (ignoring all the variables assuming many non-determinable consistencies) and it was relied on as true (most are more probably false)...
Here is how it is done more recently....may tests are taken (using different methods if possible) and the points are plotted on a graph. These can vary anywhere from 1000s of years different to millions of years different. Then the scientists make what they assume to be "the line of best guess" (in other words make up a date which most closely fits their pre-conceived conclusions about the chronology and the geological column)...like Johansen making the date fit the theory...
Line of best guess is used all over the place in collecting data and we rely on it all the time in my field of Biotechnology...problem is the human factor...one can pretty much make the guess that fits what one wants the results to indicate
Take Nutcracker Ape (called a man)...which the original Leeaky conclusion said 600,000 years old...in the respected periodical, Radio Carbon (Vol. II, 1969, pg. 65), we see an example of the dating enigma referred to above. When the Potassium Argon Method was applied along with the varied results of the Carbon 14 tests...the points varied from about 2,000 years to 1,000,000,000 years. That is a vast variance in probability.
To be honest one must admit that the true date for this sample could literally be anywhere within those parameters. Thus, we cannot really be sure just where he falls in this vast array of possibility if we rely on this method alone. If accurate then the truth is he could have been a mere 2500 to 3000 years old, or even 2,500,000 years old, but these would have put the preconceived theory into question. So which best guess fits?????
Yet it was somehow concluded to have been ‘proved’ that Nutcracker Ape was approximately 1.75 million years old! Really? This actually was a “best guess” clearly influenced by preconceived notions or at best a median or average. The problem is that they then declared this age for him as a matter of fact in nearly all the Biology textbooks of our Public High Schools, and in nearly all our Universities, here and in Europe. Even many private schools bought this into the generally accepted story as if it were a demonstrated fact based on reliable test results that Nut-Cracker was 1.75 million years old. But was it?
brother Paul
Science (Vol. 141, pg. 636), revealed that by the Carbon 14 dating alone, “tissues from living mollusks“ were demonstrated to be “dead for over 3,000 years“, while on the other hand, one Egyptian mummy historically known to be about 2000 year old, could not yield a date older than 250 years, and then again lava samples from Hawaii clearly showed what we know to be 200 year old lava formations tested out to be approximately 3,000,000 years old! Accurate? Not! This is why other methods are employed.
Early in the last century a single c-14 test was done (ignoring all the variables assuming many non-determinable consistencies) and it was relied on as true (most are more probably false)...
Here is how it is done more recently....may tests are taken (using different methods if possible) and the points are plotted on a graph. These can vary anywhere from 1000s of years different to millions of years different. Then the scientists make what they assume to be "the line of best guess" (in other words make up a date which most closely fits their pre-conceived conclusions about the chronology and the geological column)...like Johansen making the date fit the theory...
Line of best guess is used all over the place in collecting data and we rely on it all the time in my field of Biotechnology...problem is the human factor...one can pretty much make the guess that fits what one wants the results to indicate
Take Nutcracker Ape (called a man)...which the original Leeaky conclusion said 600,000 years old...in the respected periodical, Radio Carbon (Vol. II, 1969, pg. 65), we see an example of the dating enigma referred to above. When the Potassium Argon Method was applied along with the varied results of the Carbon 14 tests...the points varied from about 2,000 years to 1,000,000,000 years. That is a vast variance in probability.
To be honest one must admit that the true date for this sample could literally be anywhere within those parameters. Thus, we cannot really be sure just where he falls in this vast array of possibility if we rely on this method alone. If accurate then the truth is he could have been a mere 2500 to 3000 years old, or even 2,500,000 years old, but these would have put the preconceived theory into question. So which best guess fits?????
Yet it was somehow concluded to have been ‘proved’ that Nutcracker Ape was approximately 1.75 million years old! Really? This actually was a “best guess” clearly influenced by preconceived notions or at best a median or average. The problem is that they then declared this age for him as a matter of fact in nearly all the Biology textbooks of our Public High Schools, and in nearly all our Universities, here and in Europe. Even many private schools bought this into the generally accepted story as if it were a demonstrated fact based on reliable test results that Nut-Cracker was 1.75 million years old. But was it?
brother Paul
Radiocarbon dating has been one of the most significant discoveries in 20th century science. Renfrew (1973) called it 'the radiocarbon revolution' in describing its impact upon the human sciences. Oakley (1979) suggested its development meant an almost complete re-writing of the evolution and cultural emergence of the human species. Desmond Clark (1979) wrote that were it not for radiocarbon dating,"we would still be foundering in a sea of imprecisions sometime bred of inspired guesswork but more often of imaginative speculation" (Clark, 1979:7). Writing of the European Upper Palaeolithic, Movius (1960) concluded that "time alone is the lens that can throw it into focus".
The radiocarbon method was developed
by a team of scientists led by the late Professor
Willard F. Libby of the University of Chicago in immediate post-WW2 years.
Libby later received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960:
"for his method to use Carbon-14 for age determinations in archaeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science."
According to one of the scientists who nominated Libby as a candidate for this honour;
"Seldom has a single discovery in chemistry had such an impact on the thinking of so many fields of human endeavour. Seldom has a single discovery generated such wide public interest."
(From Taylor, 1987).
Today, there are over 130 radiocarbon dating laboratories around the world producing radiocarbon assays for the scientific community. The C14 technique has been and continues to be applied and used in many, many different fields including hydrology, atmospheric science, oceanography, geology, palaeoclimatology, archaeology and biomedicine.
The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:
14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here
Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) were the first to measure the rate of this decay. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568�30 years. This became known as theLibby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.
As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:
14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.
It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.Bone.Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.PeatCoprolites.Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.Soil.Pollen.Pottery.Wall paintings and rock art works.Iron and meteorites.Avian eggshell.Corals and foraminifera.Speleothems.Blood residues.Textiles and fabrics.Paper and parchment.Resins and glues.Antler and horn.
The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journalScience. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.
Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a �1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.
In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of �5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller 'wiggles' were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.
Later measurements of the Libby half-life indicated the figure was ca. 3% too low and a more accurate half-life was 5730�40 years. This is known as the Cambridge half-life. (To convert a "Libby" age to an age using the Cambridge half-life, one must multiply by 1.03).
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of theAccelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to �2.0 per mille or �16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.
The radiocarbon method was developed
by a team of scientists led by the late Professor
Willard F. Libby of the University of Chicago in immediate post-WW2 years.
Libby later received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960:
"for his method to use Carbon-14 for age determinations in archaeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science."
According to one of the scientists who nominated Libby as a candidate for this honour;
"Seldom has a single discovery in chemistry had such an impact on the thinking of so many fields of human endeavour. Seldom has a single discovery generated such wide public interest."
(From Taylor, 1987).
Today, there are over 130 radiocarbon dating laboratories around the world producing radiocarbon assays for the scientific community. The C14 technique has been and continues to be applied and used in many, many different fields including hydrology, atmospheric science, oceanography, geology, palaeoclimatology, archaeology and biomedicine.
The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:
14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here
Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) were the first to measure the rate of this decay. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568�30 years. This became known as theLibby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.
As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:
14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.
It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.Bone.Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.PeatCoprolites.Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.Soil.Pollen.Pottery.Wall paintings and rock art works.Iron and meteorites.Avian eggshell.Corals and foraminifera.Speleothems.Blood residues.Textiles and fabrics.Paper and parchment.Resins and glues.Antler and horn.
The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journalScience. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.
Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a �1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.
In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of �5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller 'wiggles' were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.
Later measurements of the Libby half-life indicated the figure was ca. 3% too low and a more accurate half-life was 5730�40 years. This is known as the Cambridge half-life. (To convert a "Libby" age to an age using the Cambridge half-life, one must multiply by 1.03).
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of theAccelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to �2.0 per mille or �16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.
My point about stagnation is that repetition of value does not mean something has value. It is a method of glossing over inconsistencies and problematic areas or worse diversion for financial gain. When repetition becomes ritualized then stagnation occurs.
I have written of spiritual things and yet the subject is always on the material even though believing by faith is a spiritual matter. The dichotomy between the spiritual and physical cannot be grasped when the physical is the only grounds for evaluation. Stagnation is occurring as a result of settling into the physical realm as a rock that is too heavy to move with spiritual currents.
Even new unbiased scientific advancement must step into unknown bounds with the "learned" mind being a non determinant.
Mr. Tubby,
There are two basic assumptions we make in C-14 dating. From physics we learn that the amount of C-14 increases during times of greater Cosmic Ray bombardment (which I am sure has happened multiple times in earth history). Thus the predicted assumed mother load is unknowable thus deceptive at best. There is absolutely no way to confirm that the cosmic ray influx has been essentially constant (it fluctuates even in known history), and secondly it is assumed that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle must have remained constant which we also have no scientific way of verifying.
Then to these two basic assumptions they must add a third, and that is the assumption of the constancy of the rate of decay of C-14 (it may have decayed at a different rate under different conditions at a different time),
(Also the assumption that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biologic or other activity, the assumption that the carbon dioxide contents of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant with time, the assumption that the huge reservoir of oceanic carbon has not changed in size during the period of applicability of the method, and the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon atoms have been in equilibrium throughout the period of applicability...is all necessary conjecture if one wants to get the hoped for results...none of which can be or ever has been actually proved.)
They assume that the number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known which it cannot. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed which we cannot. Nuclear Physicists have found radio halos trapped in granite (the most abundant rock on the planet) and these usually dissipate in minutes...I know, I know, "the geologists have an explanation for this phenomena" but
a) these radio halos are not their field, and
b) they only came up with their alternate theories after the discovery was made (and after many articles in Nature and Science were published)
When they realized the implications they had to defend "the theory"...
So…
a) They must assume a constant rate of decay, which in reality actually can and does fluctuate under differing conditions, and as a result,
b) must further assume that the number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized (which may not have taken as long as believed and may have altered the effect of the decay rate).
In other words Tubby, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to alternate rates of loss or gain based on nothing more than an unknown state of the original parent and/or daughter isotopes. All results are therefore by nature tainted by these unknowables. That should not be denied by an objective thinker...
It is assumption that the rate of decay of the parent isotope is knowable accurately (it is not...only in most recent times), and also that it has not changed during the full existence of the rock or mineral (which I am sure it has). It logically follows that since these assumptions may contain invalid derivations then all results rest in part on conjecture and depend on consensus for acceptance, but that does not make them true.
Think on these things...then after your answer (as this could go on for pages) let us return to the OP...
There are two basic assumptions we make in C-14 dating. From physics we learn that the amount of C-14 increases during times of greater Cosmic Ray bombardment (which I am sure has happened multiple times in earth history). Thus the predicted assumed mother load is unknowable thus deceptive at best. There is absolutely no way to confirm that the cosmic ray influx has been essentially constant (it fluctuates even in known history), and secondly it is assumed that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle must have remained constant which we also have no scientific way of verifying.
Then to these two basic assumptions they must add a third, and that is the assumption of the constancy of the rate of decay of C-14 (it may have decayed at a different rate under different conditions at a different time),
(Also the assumption that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biologic or other activity, the assumption that the carbon dioxide contents of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant with time, the assumption that the huge reservoir of oceanic carbon has not changed in size during the period of applicability of the method, and the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon atoms have been in equilibrium throughout the period of applicability...is all necessary conjecture if one wants to get the hoped for results...none of which can be or ever has been actually proved.)
They assume that the number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known which it cannot. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed which we cannot. Nuclear Physicists have found radio halos trapped in granite (the most abundant rock on the planet) and these usually dissipate in minutes...I know, I know, "the geologists have an explanation for this phenomena" but
a) these radio halos are not their field, and
b) they only came up with their alternate theories after the discovery was made (and after many articles in Nature and Science were published)
When they realized the implications they had to defend "the theory"...
So…
a) They must assume a constant rate of decay, which in reality actually can and does fluctuate under differing conditions, and as a result,
b) must further assume that the number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized (which may not have taken as long as believed and may have altered the effect of the decay rate).
In other words Tubby, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to alternate rates of loss or gain based on nothing more than an unknown state of the original parent and/or daughter isotopes. All results are therefore by nature tainted by these unknowables. That should not be denied by an objective thinker...
It is assumption that the rate of decay of the parent isotope is knowable accurately (it is not...only in most recent times), and also that it has not changed during the full existence of the rock or mineral (which I am sure it has). It logically follows that since these assumptions may contain invalid derivations then all results rest in part on conjecture and depend on consensus for acceptance, but that does not make them true.
Think on these things...then after your answer (as this could go on for pages) let us return to the OP...
Last edited:
WOW!! very wordy.
But Tubby Tubby this in no way addresses the uncertainty of original states. Can you not see...let me try another illustration.
You visit my home and you find that I am dining on an egg. You then inspect my fridge and find that I have 9 uncooked eggs there.
You might then assume that a year ago I had 374 eggs. Now would that be reasonable?
You would consider other operators such as shopping each week to replenish a much more conservative egg supply, the possibility that I only eat eggs at random intervals.
Even if you were to come stick your head in my fridge tomorrow and count how many eggs are there, that would tell you nothing about how many eggs I had a year ago, or how many eggs I have eaten in the past 12 months
Can you not see that the original mix is important to determining elapsed time, and those data are missing from our knowledge? (Simply because we were not there to take measurements)
So simple CAl...I wish I thought of that...
One of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking. That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed (or contaminated) or not just by looking at the results. You are claiming that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky. This is false. To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods. A very important tool in radiometric dating is the so called isochron diagram and it holds the key to refuting arguments against radiometric dating.
One of the most beneficial things about it is that it can check itself for accuracy; the method tells you how well the rocks have been closed systems. An isochron diagram is obtained by looking at many minerals from the same rock or from rocks forming from the same parent mineral. Data is plotted on a simple two dimensional graph; the parent isotope on the x-axis and the daughter isotope on the y-axis. Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element. So on the x-axis, we have parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) and on the y-axis we have daughter/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter).
If the samples have been undisturbed closed systems since formation, the data will fall on the same line (the isochron from which the diagram is named). The slope of this line is a function of the age of the rock. If the rock is older, the slope is higher. The reason scientists normalize with another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter is because most chemical or physical processes that occurs normally in nature does not differentiate between different isotopes of the same element when the difference in mass is as small as it is between isotopes of the same element that is used in radiometric dating. This means that the while different rocks contain different absolute amounts of the two isotopes, the ratio is same. At the time of formation for a rock, the isotopes for an element are homogenized and so the composition of a certain isotope is the same in all the minerals in the rock. But what happens when the rocks have been disturbed?
If a rock is heated during its lifetime, the system gets disturbed and some of the parent and/or daughter isotopes may move in or out of the rock. If so, the data will not fall on an isochron line, but will be all over the place. This tells scientists that the sample has been disturbed and cannot be dated with this particular method. So far from rejecting samples because they do not fit a preconceived notion of what the age should be, scientists reject samples because there is ample evidence that it has been disturbed: the data points do not lie on the isochron lines.
Scientists do not assume that rocks have been closed systems; it is a well-supported conclusion from experiments. But what about assuming that initial amounts are known?
A second property of isochron diagrams is that it actually gives the initial amount of daughter isotope as a result of the method. It is just the y-intercept of the isochron line. At this intersect, the ratio of parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) is by definition 0 and so no amount of the daughter here is produced by decay of the parent in the rock. The initial conditions are just read off the graph; it is not just assumed.
You say that scientists just assume, without warrant, that decay rates are constant. However, this is not the case. Decay rates have been shown to be constant, despite very high pressure and temperature. Furthermore, by studying supernovas far away, scientist have determined that decay rates have been constant in the ancient past as well. Not only that, different radioactive isotopes decay differently and it is enormously improbable that a postulated difference in decay rates would affect all of them in the same way, yet as we have seen, different radiometric dating methods converge on the same date (within margins of error). Fourthly, decay rates can be predicted from first principles of physics. Any change would have to correspond to changes in basic physical constants. Any such change would affect different forms of decay differently, yet this has not been observed. Also, had decay rates been high enough to be consistent with a young earth, the heat alone would have melted the earth.
Scientists do not assume that rocks have been closed systems, but they test for it. If all the data points fall on the isochron line, it has been a closed system; if it scatters, it has not and that rock is not used for dating with that method. Scientists also do not assume that initial conditions are known; this is just read off the graph at the y-intercept. Finally, by studying supernovas, scientists know that decay rates have been constant in the past.
That is just not true. You have a lot of faith. You have a lot of blind faith. Every time you drink a glass of water from the faucet or eat at a restaurant... you're putting your faith in the gov for clean water, the cook to prepare good food, the waiter to not mess up the dish. You have faith the car you drive will protect you in an accident. You have faith in the guy driving in the next lane he'll do the right thing and stay there. God's faith is no difference. He doesn't even want you to have blind faith. Search Him out and you'll see Him. You only need one this: a desire to do so and a willingness to believe.
One of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking. That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed (or contaminated) or not just by looking at the results. You are claiming that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky. This is false. To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods.
No! Thats not what I am saying and thats not what I have said....but thats okay I beginning to see that you do not process well, you sort of read into things...like I did not say anything remotely like scientists assume rocks to be closed systems...
So where are we? in genesis?
No! Thats not what I am saying and thats not what I have said....but thats okay I beginning to see that you do not process well, you sort of read into things...like I did not say anything remotely like scientists assume rocks to be closed systems...
So where are we? in genesis?
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Having reviewed all the animals and found them not complementary to Adam,he was provided with a compliment that was of the same flesh makeup as himself. This is an early established principle that is frequently referred to throughout scripture in one form or another.
The next item of disclosure is that they felt no shame. They were innocent just as a small child be they boy or girl feel no shame at being naked.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Having reviewed all the animals and found them not complementary to Adam,he was provided with a compliment that was of the same flesh makeup as himself. This is an early established principle that is frequently referred to throughout scripture in one form or another.
The next item of disclosure is that they felt no shame. They were innocent just as a small child be they boy or girl feel no shame at being naked.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Interesting no end.
The obvious question would be where did they get needle and thread to sew fig leaves together.
The not so obvious answer might well be that they wove the leaves together using the (storks??) puncturing the leafy part of one leaf with the woody part of another leaf.
As we will read later, this was highly inadequate and better apparel is provided.
The forbidden fruit; what was it?
It most likely was the fruit of disobedience and rebellion.
Through that act of disobedience, they lost their innocence and now could experience shame.
Much could be said about Lucy(fer),
I'll stand back to let some expected smoke disipate.
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Interesting no end.
The obvious question would be where did they get needle and thread to sew fig leaves together.
The not so obvious answer might well be that they wove the leaves together using the (storks??) puncturing the leafy part of one leaf with the woody part of another leaf.
As we will read later, this was highly inadequate and better apparel is provided.
The forbidden fruit; what was it?
It most likely was the fruit of disobedience and rebellion.
Through that act of disobedience, they lost their innocence and now could experience shame.
Much could be said about Lucy(fer),
I'll stand back to let some expected smoke disipate.
8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
Couple of things here, how can one 'hide' from an omniscient God?
And also, what is the sound of God walking? Is it the same sound as you and I make when walking?
9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
Couple of things here, how can one 'hide' from an omniscient God?
And also, what is the sound of God walking? Is it the same sound as you and I make when walking?
I think of this as a conversation, not as a game of hide and seek. God wants to hear their replies to his questions. They hid, but God knew where they were.
I have a three year old. If I know she has made a mess, I ask her if she did even though I know she did. I do this because I want to hear her reply and encourage her to be open and honest with me. I don't like to use experience to answer a question, but for me I see God as a loving parent, not a grumpy dude in the clouds. I'm not going to fill your screen with verses, there are many that show God knows every aspect of our life. Since we are studying Genesis, I'll keep to the verses here.
I have a three year old. If I know she has made a mess, I ask her if she did even though I know she did. I do this because I want to hear her reply and encourage her to be open and honest with me. I don't like to use experience to answer a question, but for me I see God as a loving parent, not a grumpy dude in the clouds. I'm not going to fill your screen with verses, there are many that show God knows every aspect of our life. Since we are studying Genesis, I'll keep to the verses here.
As far as the sound, I can't answer that. And as I said earlier, I don't like to use experience to answer a question. If you're interested pm me and I will share some experiences I've had with God.
I understand from earlier in Genesis that God was an energy source or such, not a physical form and now this scripture says we can hear him walking which I find a bit odd that's all.
- Status