Replies

We sorry son but all of that was from text books and quotes from Dr libby and leading scientists that pioreered this stuff that was written in the late 1970's and 1980's and if memoy seves you can find most of this cited in a single book called "Crash go the Chariots" by I can't recall the man's first name it might have been clifford but his last name was "Wilson" the mentioning of the book is only for puroposes that in simplitic terms these things are explained along with conctrete references.

So my simplistic explanation stands by the pioneers of your field" and I can stand by Dr. Libby's words any day over your words of adam smith and these others

Calling the words you cited as "garbage" calls now into question your expertise in the field and the position you supposedly hold.

The cut and paste links are all anti-creationist stuff which again states your bias, your agnostic and or atheistic bent more than your supposed scientific background.

As I stated from the start I am not one of those who is arguing for intelligent design

I have also clearly stated that I do not even care to be drawn into debates about evolution or the gap theory By Christians or non-beleviers like yourself.

I have been at odds with these things since the late 1970's before the word creationist came into being before any of this became another cottage monet making industry in the church.

I merely argued about the original OPENING quotes and comments.

And I responded to a second post that restated and tried to deflect the flood of comments from others than myself fromyou and lay it on someone else as it being their fault and not yours. -- so I called you on that.

Now I see the depth of your intellectual dishonesty in your last statements I see you not only are not an originalist and have not read Darwin and can not make your arguements from his words and writings but you don't cite Dr Libby his writings or words and his colleagues writings to refute my words becasue you have not read their words and if you did, you could still not refute my words.

So I will not longer be a part of this post or respond you your rants.

In your post #884 you had a long screed which contained a number of errors in one of the fields in which I work.

In particular, you included the following paragraph:

In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death -- yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated. we can talk potassium agron dating or whatever they are all inherently flawed and and produce less and less reliable results the father the dating is extended. Dr Libby who pioneered radio Carbon dating in the 1940's in his own writings noted these flaws. And in the 1970's and 1980's a living mollusk was placed in carbon dating and declared dead for a million + years in the 1990's trees along California highways were cut down and samples were carbon dated and these read as being over a million years old. All of these methods are based upon a constant. A constant is a baseline that remains the same for all time. However in the past 50 years there has been a large rise of carbon 12 in the atmosphere. No body in the 1600's or on 1 ad or 6000 bc was able to take carbon 14 levels to assume they were always the same is very poor science. Volcanos spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleteing clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emmitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in california from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by casuing it to rise and rise?

In post #891 I responded:

Son, this is the biggest pile of garbage on Carbon 14 dating I have ever seen in one place.
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work. If you want to actually discuss any of these items I will be happy to help you, but first you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. Read these links and you can try again (hint--take a look at the tree-ring section). [Links omitted in this repost.]

You then came back in #905 with (in part):

We sorry son but all of that was from text books and quotes from Dr libby and leading scientists that pioreered this stuff that was written in the late 1970's and 1980's and if memoy seves you can find most of this cited in a single book called "Crash go the Chariots" by I can't recall the man's first name it might have been clifford but his last name was "Wilson" the mentioning of the book is only for puroposes that in simplitic terms these things are explained along with conctrete references. ...
Calling the words you cited as "garbage" calls now into question your expertise in the field and the position you supposedly hold. ...
Now I see the depth of your intellectual dishonesty in your last statements I see you not only are not an originalist and have not read Darwin and can not make your arguements from his words and writings but you don't cite Dr Libby his writings or words and his colleagues writings to refute my words becasue you have not read their words and if you did, you could still not refute my words. ...

First, you are probably replying to several people at once, as my post dealt only with Carbon 14 dating.

Secondly, you called my expertise and intellectual honesty into question. In order to defend these, I will examine the errors I found in your paragraph, which I did not do in my original post (#891). Note, this is the only paragraph I responded to; you will have to take up other issues with those who raised them.

In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death

The ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 is relatively stable in the atmosphere. All living things absorb carbon, and so the ratio in living things closely approximates that in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, the Carbon 14, being radioactive, decays over time--it is not released, as you state. With a half life of 5730 years, half of the original amount decays into Carbon 12 with each 5730 years. No additional Carbon 14 is gained after death.

yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated.

The dating is not noticeable off because radiocarbon dates are calibrated against the calibration curve, which accounts for atmospheric variation. This curve has been established using individual tree-rings from bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California and from another site in Europe. It extends 11,600 years into the past. Beyond that, the curve is established on glacial varves, and goes in excess of 20,000 years.

we can talk potassium agron dating or whatever they are all inherently flawed and and produce less and less reliable results the father the dating is extended.

I deal only in radiocarbon dating.

Dr Libby who pioneered radio Carbon dating in the 1940's in his own writings noted these flaws.

Dr. Libby's work is read primarily for historical interest now. The field has advanced greatly since his pioneering efforts. The primary journal now is Radiocarbon, and there are some good recent books as well.

And in the 1970's and 1980's a living mollusk was placed in carbon dating and declared dead for a million + years in the 1990's trees along California highways were cut down and samples were carbon dated and these read as being over a million years old.

Because Carbon 14 is such a small part of the total carbon pool, and because of its short half life of 5730 years, the radiocarbon dating method cannot be used past about 50,000 years (although some labs are trying to extend the AMS method back to about 80,000 years). Because of this, you simply cannot get a date anywhere close to a million years. Dates which extend beyond the range are often cited as ">40,000" or some such.

All of these methods are based upon a constant. A constant is a baseline that remains the same for all time. However in the past 50 years there has been a large rise of carbon 12 in the atmosphere.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated (that is, conventional radiocarbon age is converted to calendar dates) by reference to a calibration curve. The need for this has been known since 1958. This corrects for the variations in atmospheric Carbon 14. Therefore, with calibration, the dates are quite accurate. But, the atomic testing beginning in the 1940s makes modern samples quite unreliable. The calibration curve goes off the chart at about A.D. 1950. No scientist is going to use post-WWII samples without knowing about the need for a different calibration curve.

No body in the 1600's or on 1 ad or 6000 bc was able to take carbon 14 levels to assume they were always the same is very poor science.

Dr. Libby, who you quote several times, assumed the levels were the same--as a pioneering effort he had to start somewhere. Since de Vries (1958) we have known there are variations. That is the reason so much effort has been put into the calibration curves. They are calculated in 1 year increments for the last 350 years, and larger increments for the next 11,000+ years.

In addition to the calibration curve, there are other ways of improving the accuracy of dating. Isotopic fractionation is taken into account, and samples which employ marine carbon (sea shells, for example) must take a marine reservoir of old carbon into account.

Volcanos spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleteing clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emmitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in california from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by casuing it to rise and rise?

Again, this shows the need for a calibration curve. But why would we worry about Carbon 12 being emitted from Mount Pinatubo? We worry about Carbon 14, which is created in the outer atmosphere.

I hope this helps to clarify any questions of expertise and intellectual honesty. (Note: I have used no cut-and-paste. This is all from my own studies and learning.)