That isn't fair because... he said he wouldn't respond any more on this subject.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll try one more time although there is little hope for one as > radicalised as you. Take a lesson from the high priests who would not > believe Jesus' message even when he rose from the dead but would rather > bribe the guards to stop others believing the truth. Don't try to destroy > evidence like them, but appreciate and love it - when enough of it is > collated and weighed, it must lead to the truth and maybe in an unexpected > direction. > > What happened about a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe made > in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago"? Did that turn out to be a YEC > legend with no foundation in truth? (Often when you actually chase up > something like this it turns out to be the case or has a very prosaic > explanation!) > > > On 16/08/2014 8:40 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > > Radionucleotide dating, whatever radionucleotides are being used is > inherently based on assumptions. If any of the assumptions do not hold up, > the method is totally useless. > > But the assumptions do hold up and extremely well as the evidence proves! > > Assumption #1: That the ratio of the 2 isotopes is the same in the past > as it is in the present. In Carbon Dating for instance - the ratio of C14 > to C12 is assumed to be the same today as it was thousands of years ago. ... > > You obviously did not read what I wrote or take one look at the reference > <https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16947/pdf> > I gave. The whole idea of the *calibration* is that you do *not assume* > that the ratio thousands of years ago was the same as today. If you made > that assumption there would be no wiggles in the line. The wiggles in the > line are the variations in this C14 to C12 ratio going back tens of > thousands of years. Take a look at these wiggles > <http://www.radiocarbon.com/PDF/Calibration-of-Radiocarbon-Age-Sample.pdf> > in the ratio in more recent data where the true age can be determined > pretty much to the exact year. > > Characteristic "wiggles" with periods of order decades were first noted > about 1967 and since then have become a dating method in their own right. > When a set of measurements representing some decades can be made on a > sample such as coral, then the pattern of wiggles each side of a perfect > exponential decay can be matched with the wiggles in the calibration curve > to allow accurate dating of the sample even in the presence of overall > contamination or background. A bit like matching tree ring variations - to > anchor an otherwise floating chronology. > > Well, we can not categorically say that for sure. New C14 is constantly > being created by various natural processes present in our Earth. How can > we be confident that we totally understand those processes... > > We don't have to understand those processes. The method is empirical and > is can be *calibrated* from other processes that we do understand or can > measure in the laboratory. > > > Assumption #2: That the rate of radionucleotide decay is constant. I > think is is safe to say at our present knowledge that this may not be > true. There is quite compelling evidence that this is not true. > > Again for carbon dating it is irrelevant whether the decay rate is > constant or not because we can calibrate any variation out of it. The > variations that have been noted are also extremely small (~0.1%) and do not > seem to occur for the majority of elements. They are also of an AC nature > (ie wiggles) and do not make any difference to a long term average > measurement. All indications from ancient experimental data (eg from > distant astronomical sources that can be dated from their distance, or > natural events such as the Oklo natural fission reactor that occurred a > very long time ago) are that the decay rate has been constant within > measurement error. > > > Assumption #3: That there is no processes that may preferentially add > one isotope over another. Like I said, there are many natural processes > that add C14 preferentially over C12. This plays havoc on our instruments > and produces inherently unreliable results. How else could one lab produce > a date of 300,000+ years while another working on the same sample produce a > date of 100,000+ years. We say that we should throw away the outliers and > take the mean. But isn't it true that an outlier with an error this big is > already reason enough to suspect the technique? > > This may be true for some ancient artefacts that we would like to date > when you really don't know if a passing camel might have spat on it or a > bird shat on it. But when you can choose your sample from a protected > environment like deep in a stalactite or a coral bed, then there is really > nothing to "play havoc on our instruments and produce inherently > unreliable results". How else could many scientists working > independently in widely varying fields all get points that fall smack on > the same line, complete with the same wiggles that have become as > recognisable as tree rings!? > > Look at the plotted points in figure 1 of that reference > <https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16947/pdf> > I gave you. How is it that all these scientists from different groups in > different countries and investigating different sources in different parts > of the world all find that their points fall on the same line!? What is > your explanation for that? Could it be a gigantic collusion of all academia > to undermine the authority of the Bible and destroy belief in the flood, or > could it be simply the *truth*? > > > Assumption #4: That the object being dated has not been contaminated in > the course of natural human activity. For instance, the leather in the > shoe has not be soaked in natural oils that would skew its C14/C12 ratio. > This assumption is doubtful at best especially for the old objects we are > trying to date. > > Assumption #5: That we understand the processes that we use as a baseline > to calibrate radionucleotide dating techniques. You illustrate my point > quite well below in your argument. You say the Carbon dating has been > calibrated from tree rings for instance. But do we totally understand how > tree rings are formed. For instance, it has been documented that trees do > not form rings under certain conditions. Can we be assured that we totally > understand the process of tree ring formation? > > I am sure that we really do understand tree rings. We can produce and > experiment with them in the laboratory. And we can also take samples from > trees some distance away or other species that would not as affected by > occasional extreme climate conditions. In that we we can know when a ring > failed to be produced or two were produced by unseasonable weather. > > According to wikipedia "Fully anchored chronologies which extend back > more than 11,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from > the Main and Rhine rivers) and pine from Northern Ireland. Furthermore, > the mutual consistency of these *two independent* dendrochronological > sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and > dendrochronological ages." I think you are grasping at straws to hope > that these guys might be out by a factor of two or ten, or whatever it is > you need to hold on to your world view! > > > > Assumption #6: That the accuracy of the radionucleotide measurement hold > well over several halflifes of the radionucleotide in question. To > illustrate, Carbon dating is only reliable over 2 halflifes - that means > around 10,000 years. After 2 halflifes, the amounts of isotopes become > very unreliable to measure. Why is it then that carbon dating is used to > establish ages of 100,000 years or more? > > This is obvious nonsense. 2 half-lives means that we are down to 1/4 of > the original percentage. If this is the noise level of instruments then we > could only measure modern C14 ratios with an error of 25%! Maybe this was > true 100 years ago, but a glance at the error bars on any measurements in > either of the references I have given prove that this is far from true > nowadays. (Scientists do know how to calculate error bars correctly!). > > > These and the preponderance of widely varying actual results speak for > themselves. Radionucleotide dating is highly unreliable. To establish a > theory based on these techniques is building a house of cards > > The preponderance of amazingly well fitting radiometric data from many > different sources and all over the world speaks for itself. When an > uncontaminated sample can be obtained, it is highly reliable. To base ones > world view on this mountain of evidence being erroneous or fabricated is to > build your house on sand! >
