So how reliable are the C14 calibration methods?

[TAO]

Sorry, with creationists dishonesty is the rule. With scientists, as with all other normal, professional people, it's the exception.

You don't understand the data. It's been confronted over and over.

Semlogo, saying this would be kinda proving of Zak's point... if scientists are not dishonest, they WILL look at all claims regardless of where they come from.

[semlogo]

Semlogo, saying this would be kinda proving of Zak's point... if scientists are not dishonest, they WILL look at all claims regardless of where they come from.

Do you honestly think scientists have not evaluated creationist claims?

[TAO]

Do you honestly think scientists have not evaluated creationist claims?

Well us apolgoists have sure evaluated critics claims... and yet we STILL have to keep answering them.

Thus it is scientists job to provide answers, and not dismiss it as 'creationist ramble'. It is a scientist job to actually explore something, to see if something new can be made. If nobody ever wondered if the earth wasn't flat, I'm sure we would still consider it flat. Thus it is a scientists responsibility to consider all the solutions suggested by other people. Now, I have not seen anybody properly answer Zak's claims in this thread, and if you want to be a honest scientist, well, you have to do it.

[Zakuska]

TAO,

Why do all that when a simple wave of the hand and two fingers in the ears and singing "LA LA LA you creationist fool " accomplishes the same thing?

I've been bringing up Papers by Scientists themselves criticing their own methods and results and as of yet not a single self proclaimed board "scientist" has even looked at the data. All we get is Ad Hominem after Ad Hominem.

[ERayR]

That's the spirit!

Are these people also clueless?

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

"Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements. Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects. More information on the sources of error in carbon dating are presented at the bottom of this page."

Uncertainty in Carbon Dating

As mentioned above, there is significant uncertainty in carbon dating. There are several variables that contribute to this uncertainty. First, as mentioned previously, the proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is

[Zakuska]

Yeah, but those IOWANs can't be trusted... their just a bunch of Inbread hill-billies!

* Note: Just pre-empting the inevitable response from the board sliderule-monkies. This is not my Opinion of IOWANs in general.

[TAO]

TAO,

Why do all that when a simple wave of the hand and two fingers in the ears and singing "LA LA LA you creationist fool " accomplishes the same thing?

I've been bringing up Papers by Scientists themselves criticing their own methods and results and as of yet not a single self proclaimed board "scientist" has even looked at the data. All we get is Ad Hominem after Ad Hominem.

No, I think they've looked at the data; it's that they have not spent the time necessary to produce a decent counterpoint against it. So they use "creationists never have good points" which I think is the most unrespectable way to get out of a squeeze. I could understand if they said "the sources are biased", but they don't say that... they release a blanket... and the sources aren't even biased, so I don't even see how THAT would work.

[ERayR]

No, I think they've looked at the data; it's that they have not spent the time necessary to produce a decent counterpoint against it. So they use "creationists never have good points" which I think is the most unrespectable way to get out of a squeeze. I could understand if they said "the sources are biased", but they don't say that... they release a blanket... and the sources aren't even biased, so I don't even see how THAT would work.

Can you blame them the way you attack their religion.

[Vance]

C14 dating by itself on a single item is not all that accurate if used alone on something that is tens of thousands of years old.

The problem I have with this statement is that, as I recall, in that not so long ago thread I was specifically pointed to C14 tree ring data as the confirmation of the accuracy of C14 dating. (As I recall, my quibble was with calibration of the models.) And now Zak provides evidence that that confirmation (calibration method) is not as stable and reliable as my detractors would have us believe.

So, may I ask, what second witness, so to speak, is available for stuff more than "tens of thousands of years old"?

[Zakuska]

Hey isn't that EXACTLY what I just said on the other thread and Tarski and Hutch (er semlogo) sneered and riduculed?!

"The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."

You didn't get it Tarski. Its a function of time.

If they take a sample of my bones and 1/3 of the atoms are Carbon14 that is 6000 years old. And 1/3 is 4000 years old and 1/3 is created the day before I die. You better bet thats going to effect how old the experiments are going to date me to.

Other wise the seals who died yesterday and where carbon dated to 2000 years ago couldn't be effected by "OLD Carbon" and RESERVIOR effect.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

The probability of decay of a C14 atom is independent of its age. Period

You are clueless.

Yes it SURE is Zakuska who is "clueless".

[semlogo]

Well us apolgoists have sure evaluated critics claims... and yet we STILL have to keep answering them.

Thus it is scientists job to provide answers, and not dismiss it as 'creationist ramble'. It is a scientist job to actually explore something, to see if something new can be made. If nobody ever wondered if the earth wasn't flat, I'm sure we would still consider it flat. Thus it is a scientists responsibility to consider all the solutions suggested by other people. Now, I have not seen anybody properly answer Zak's claims in this thread, and if you want to be a honest scientist, well, you have to do it.

So, do you think scientists aren't doing that? Have you not read the many times where Tarski has answered ALL of Zak's claims, only to have Zak completely ignore those answers and then post something else? Do you think Zak is being intellectually honest in refusing to acknowledge Tarski's rebuttals and instead effectively changing the subject?

[Zakuska]

So, do you think scientists aren't doing that? Have you not read the many times where Tarski has answered ALL of Zak's claims, only to have Zak completely ignore those answers and then post something else? Do you think Zak is being intellectually honest in refusing to acknowledge Tarski's rebuttals and instead effectively changing the subject?

Ummmm... Excuse me but... If Im not mistaken it was Tarski who said that Tree Ring data cooberated everything. Then when we look at what the dendrochronolgy actuall tells us we get a completely different story of the state of things. Who exactly are we supposed to trust, Tarski (a math Major, ie sliderule-monkey) or the dendrochronogists?

I mean come on 3 different dates with more than 99.9% certainty!

Or how about this one?

In this light, note that dendrochronologists working in Hohenheim, Germany, were proven wrong three times in the mid 1990s, each time after very strong assertions of reliability.²⁰

Thats not a very good track record with being accurate OR reliable!

[semlogo]

TAO,

Why do all that when a simple wave of the hand and two fingers in the ears and singing "LA LA LA you creationist fool " accomplishes the same thing?

I've been bringing up Papers by Scientists themselves criticing their own methods and results and as of yet not a single self proclaimed board "scientist" has even looked at the data. All we get is Ad Hominem after Ad Hominem.

No, what you've been doing is misinterpreting data that you personally don't understand. And avoiding responding to 9/10ths of Tarski's responses. Followed by bleating and crying about ad hominems. Typical troll material.

[semlogo]

Are these people also clueless?

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

"Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements. Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects. More information on the sources of error in carbon dating are presented at the bottom of this page."

Uncertainty in Carbon Dating

As mentioned above, there is significant uncertainty in carbon dating. There are several variables that contribute to this uncertainty. First, as mentioned previously, the proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is

[semlogo]

No, I think they've looked at the data; it's that they have not spent the time necessary to produce a decent counterpoint against it. So they use "creationists never have good points" which I think is the most unrespectable way to get out of a squeeze. I could understand if they said "the sources are biased", but they don't say that... they release a blanket... and the sources aren't even biased, so I don't even see how THAT would work.

Sorry, but you don't know anything about this topic - that's abundantly clear. Neither do I. Neither does Zak or Vance or eRayr. The only person in these threads qualified to speak to this issue is the one person all of you flat earthers keep ignoring.

[semlogo]

Ummmm... Excuse me but... If Im not mistaken it was Tarski who said that Tree Ring data cooberated everything. Then when we look at what the dendrochronolgy actuall tells us we get a completely different story of the state of things. Who exactly are we supposed to trust, Tarski (a math Major, ie sliderule-monkey) or the dendrochronogists?

I mean come on 3 different dates with more than 99.9% certainty!

Or how about this one?

Thats not a very good track record with being accurate OR reliable!

So, with no source given, you're saying that one alleged instance of error disproves an entire science?

Again,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[Zakuska]

Heres an itresting Article in Popular Science... Plese scroll down to the section called Radio Carbon Clock Erratic. Its quite intresting.

Radiocarbon clock erratic

With all its advantages, the accuracy of the new dating method can't be blindly trusted. The problem? The amount of cosmogenic isotopes found in a substance can vary widely, depending on the sun's activity. The problem most effect radiocarbon.

When first developed in the 1950's the radicarbon clock seemd wholly accurate. It had to be, reasoned scientists; radioactive decay is constant.

But something was wrong. Radio-carbon placed Greek artifacts in eras incompatible with their designs. Egyptian cloth, roughtly dated by ancient dynsasty records, seemd to be hundreds of years younger than it should be, and Stradivarius violins, made about 1700AD, read by radio-carbon to be nearly contemporary.

While these scattered discrpencies were still cropping up, Hans suess of the Univertsity of California at San Diego made the definitive discovery of the radiocarbon clock's inaccuracy.

Suess was counting tree rings and dated them with C-14. As he leafed back through the centuries, he discovered that the C-14 dates were beginning to fall short--so much so that a tree ring fromed 2000BC, for example, read radiocarbon to be 500 Years younger.

Was the rate of decay not constant after all? No, realized the chronometrists. The problem was C-14 production. And the villian? The sun. it is not as stable and predictable as most solar scientists had beleived. Every so often (the periodicity hasn't yet been precisely determined), the sun-- for reasons still poorly understood-- enters a time of quiet, a time of virtually no sunspots. And during thse times more cosmic rays are able to penetrate the atomsphere to significantly increase levels of C-14.

Such a period occured, for example, from 1645 to 1715-- about the time of Stradivarius. Trees growing during that period obsorbed so much C-14 that, according to radiocarbon dating, violins made from wood were fitted together only last week.

Dendrochronologists -- scientists such as Suess who count tree rings-- have partially solved the C-14 accuracy problems. By carefully measuring radiocarbon levels in ancient tree rings, they have calibrated C-14 variations back to about 6000BC. Now Chronometrists know that if C-14 says Stonehendge is 3700 years old, for instance, it actually is 4300 years old.

But beyond 8000 years? Says the University of Rochester's Gove: "There is no way to adjust. When I say that the whooly Mammoth we dated is 26,000 years old, I can determine possible error based on reproducibility, but God knows what the cosmic rays were like back around that time."

That last sentence is pretty funny coming from a Scientist?!

Partially solved? Only Partially?

[Zakuska]

So, with no source given, you're saying that one alleged instance of error disproves an entire science?

Again,

http://en.wikipedia....g-Kruger_effect

You know... scientists are REALLY lazy.

I gave the sources in the OP...

19. Kuniholm, P. -- 1993: Appendix in G. Summers: Tille Huyuk 4, pp. 179-90

20. Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf )

Kruger effect indeed.

[semlogo]

You know... scientists are REALLY lazy.

I gave the sources in the OP...

Kruger effect indeed.

You didn't give the source in the post I quoted. Nor did you provide context.

[Zakuska]

Read the OP for heck sake. It does both!

Once again demonstrating the laziness of the "scientists" on this board. Pontificating without ever bothering at reading the contrary scientific data.

[TAO]

So, do you think scientists aren't doing that? Have you not read the many times where Tarski has answered ALL of Zak's claims, only to have Zak completely ignore those answers and then post something else? Do you think Zak is being intellectually honest in refusing to acknowledge Tarski's rebuttals and instead effectively changing the subject?

I have noticed Tarski NOT doing this. I have noticed him citing "creationist ramble", rather than answer the points. Zak at least counter-points SOME of Tarski's points.

[TAO]

No, what you've been doing is misinterpreting data that you personally don't understand.

CFR.

And avoiding responding to 9/10ths of Tarski's responses.

CFR.

Followed by bleating and crying about ad hominems. Typical troll material.

CFR.

I can provide plenty of examples of where you and Tarski say he's doing things, or dismiss his points for bad reasons. Can you provide examples for what you are saying?

Literally, it makes me SICK when people do this. Dont' just sit there and dismiss his points... provide counter-points for them!

[FutureTwitBlog]

Well us apolgoists have sure evaluated critics claims... and yet we STILL have to keep answering them.

Thus it is scientists job to provide answers, and not dismiss it as 'creationist ramble'. It is a scientist job to actually explore something, to see if something new can be made. If nobody ever wondered if the earth wasn't flat, I'm sure we would still consider it flat. Thus it is a scientists responsibility to consider all the solutions suggested by other people. Now, I have not seen anybody properly answer Zak's claims in this thread, and if you want to be a honest scientist, well, you have to do it.

While I agree with you that it is the job of the scientific community to answer the claims of creationists, I can understand the frustration of some on this message board (or ones like it) when they feel like the claims of creationists have been answered but that creationist refuse to look for the answers. Many of these complaints made by creationists have been studied and the findings published in scientific journals. In a few cases, the finding may confirm some of the beliefs of the creationists. In most cases, at least from my experience, they don't.

Also, while I agree that there are still many, many things for us to learn about the universe, I think that we can't just discard the vast amounts of progress that have been made up to this point by science. Again, just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that science knows nothing.

[Zakuska]

TAO... lets see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

There are two archeological finds which "scientists" use to infere "the great reliability of the tree ring data"

1) Is the Ulburnian Shipwrek

http://www.centuries...uk/uluburun.pdf

Since then several other publications (including Manning 1999, 417-18; Dodson

2000, 14-15; Gilboa, Sharon & Zorn 2004, 54, n. 39) have cited the Uluburun date as

providing scientific confirmation of the conventional chronology and a refutation of

the case made in Centuries of Darkness case for a major lowering of the Late Bronze

Age in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Lets read some of the Critiques by the sicentists.

Strictly speaking there is no

[Zakuska]

Peter Kuniholm