Thanks for identifying yourself my friend. I already forgot who it was that challenged me and I wasn't inclined to waste my time searching the archives.
You asked for proof of my assertion that radionucleotide dating is unreliable, and I provided several actual egregious examples from reputable researchers published in reputable peer-reviewed publications. And yet, your response is: These are all outliers and errors and legends. My friend, You are only willing to accept results that seem right to you. Any other result is an outlier, and error and incompetence automatically. You claim that they are legends with no truth to it, yet they are published in publications that you respect. The problem with your version of "science" is that you want to have the right to decide which experimental result is valid. Any result you don't like is a mistake, an instrument error or legend. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness. Of course these results are well known, and published in creationist web sites and elsewhere. Why? Because they show the truth that people like you would rather bury as an error, outlier or legend, so that you can promote your own twisted theories and beliefs. Your rebutal to my #1 and #2 items seems to illustrate very well my oriignal point. These two links claim that there are other processes that could skew the result. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old Which is precisely my point. The technique depends on many assumptions many of which we do not fully understand. Hence, results are unreliable. My friend, you can discuss all you want till you turn blue, all the wiggly lines, all the calibration reports, the tree lines, all the expert opinions, etc etc .... but if you can not explain how these egregious results come about from a technique you deem reliable, your argument rings hollow. Your only other option is to claim error, outlier and/or incompetence, which is precisely what you and a couple of other folks like Jed is claiming. You don't like the result, it must be an error, an outlier. How convenient. Regarding what Moses wrote, if you want to discuss religion, start a new thread. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: ...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies. I asked specifically for a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago". That seemed remarkable as it is very difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination could explain it. But having also searched in vain for such a report myself, I guess it was just a YEC circulated legend after all, with no truth to it. 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-63 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 ... As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem to be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on by YECs and circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost identical list here: http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm) However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be bothered to look for them. For instance the living shells dated as old are discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old And the freshly killed seal is discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old But I think you don't want evidence. You would much rather stir up as much mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too hard to see any pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever and the whole field should be tossed out as just so much crap. But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will not fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years fall within a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the wiggly line - which on average decays exactly as predicted. Even the wiggles in the line (which are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at those ancient dates) can be matched between widely varying deposits of very different types and in very distant locations. As I now understand it the starting C14 concentration is known to the exact year. There are multiple complete and independent sequences (ie from Ireland and Germany) of tree rings that can be counted back 11,000 years and that are mutually consistent. Counting varves and measuring the radiocarbon concentration of the organic sediment layers in Lake Suigetsu have allowed the starting C14 concentration to be calibrated back to more than 50,000 years (again exact to the year as I understand it). And there is no indication of unusual deposits or gaps around the time of Noah! In this regard maybe you would like to explain the "GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers" that you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2D1837_crop.jpg. Every indication (by counting annual layers) is that this ice formed ~16250 years ago - again with no evidence of disturbance or melting in a flood. Other ice core data extend this evidence back to ~800,000 years without a significant break. How can you reduce this stretch of data by a factor of ~200? Do you think they could have had 200 blizzards per year for 4000 years to make it look like 800,000 seasonal layers had formed in only 4000 years? Next! Something you wrote here that didn't really make sense at the time: ... you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. ... you are quibbling about the exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel)The problem is that in Exod 34:27-28 it clearly says that Moses did the chiselling, whereas in Deut 10:4 it says that God did the chiselling and gave the tablets back to Moses. If as you asserted Moses really did the chiselling but God was "writing" - in that he was the author - why would God need to give the tablets back to Moses? Maybe God couldn't see that well and so had Moses hand them up to him so that He could take a closer look to check for mistakes before handing them back?
