Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman

[[Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so.]]

Mmm, Yes, We’re “Nitpicking” when we point out hte blatantly obvious problems with the very core methods used to ‘determine hte age’ of fossils- Yup- that’s all we’re doing is ‘nitpicking’- Cripes!

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/

There’s plenty more- lemme know if you wish to review.... errr I mean ignore them all in more detail.


610 posted on 12/29/2008 11:40:59 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies ]


To: CottShop
Nice cut and paste.

But lets examine one of those many references you provided and see how accurate they are. We'll pick one in a field that I know pretty well.

Radiometric Dating Methods problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

One of the main claims of this article, that purports to rebut the radiocarbon dating method is:

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these "ancient" skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?

No, its another example of creation "science" in practice.

Analysis:

This claim is false due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with archaeology, amino acid racemization dating, and radiocarbon dating. And probably science in general.

This claim seems to have originated with Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.

The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate, and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrong–probably out of a wish to show errors in the radiocarbon method. The opposite is true: the Taylor et al. article, by redating these specimens using the AMS method of radiocarbon dating, corrected the earlier, erroneous amino acid racemization age estimates.

But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method — a result the exact opposite of what the research actually showed! It was radiocarbon dating that corrected the earlier errors!

Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts, or are they just doing sloppy research through lack of familiarity with these sciences? Probably the latter, but this practice is so common that one wonders.

Reference

Taylor, R.E., et al., Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1983, pp. 136-140.

-----------------

So much for the accuracy of creation "science" -- and this again demonstrates what I posted above:

Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so.

Keep posting; you prove my points with every post.

615 posted on 12/29/2008 12:16:34 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson