[_ Old Earth _] Atheist or Evolutionist?

[BobRyan]

Given that you haven't provided a source from that information, are you talking about this:

"Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old."

no.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
[quote:oabdq0iy]
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new
radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

[/quote:oabdq0iy]

Hovind is missing from that quote -- but if he also has some data to add -- I am more than happy to add him in!!

My point is the one about 16.1 atoms per gram outflux C14 to N14 vs the 18.8 atoms per gram for C14 production.

What argument did you have to refute Sewell or Libby? Or was this just a "deny-first-then-ask-question" effort?


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You mean, Hovind is his "source"? That explains a lot.

Plato-Cave is an admitted atheist and I am guessing that it serves his purpose to imagine that Hovind is the source for the C14 SPR of 18.8 atoms per gram per minute and the C14 SDR of 16.1 atoms per gram per minute (showing that the production rate for C14 is still greater than the SDR rate).

But before you blindly go along with that bit of story telling on his part - you might want to check the facts first.

Those who just-say-nay to whatever the Bible says as their starting position should at the very least take a critical-objective position when introduced to wild guesses from atheist contributors. It would be a shame for a Christian to blindly trust whatever guesses are offerred by atheists while doubting the trustworthy nature of scripture at almost every turn when it comes to -The Creator of Life and what He actually says He did!.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, can you provide a citation and link for the quote on Dr Libby and the SPR of C14? Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

The quote from Dr Libby is
W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, page 8.

Bob

 

[Orion]

1952????? :-?

 

[lordkalvan]

The quote from Dr Libby is
W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, page 8.

Bob

Thanks for that reference, Bob, but I obviously didn't make my request clear enough, which is my own fault: I meant the reference and link for the article in which Dr Libby is quoted. RM dating techniques and understanding have advanced significantly since 1952, as your quote implies, and it is the broader context I am interested in. For example, where did the SPR figure for carbon-14 that you quote come from?

 

[BobRyan]

1952????? :-?

Good point -- radiometrics turns out to be a well established science.

Oh no wait! You meant to imagine that all of radiometrics was rewritten since 1952!

And your "data"??

Or are you arguing that the the cosmic energy activity in our atmosphere changed radically since 1952?? Yes -- I am sure that is what you meant to imagine. ;-)

And Hovind is responsible for most of the C14 -> N14 SDR? :P :

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

For example, where did the SPR figure for carbon-14 that you quote come from?

I think Dr Libby asked Hovind for that information -- as I recall.

Here is an online link in leu of the book -

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death).

And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

Bob

 

[Orion]

It is interesting how the vast majority of scientists haven't agreed with the age of the earth that you are promoting, Bob. Seems as though it has been well established that the earth is far more than 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Bob, is this a conspiracy on the part of the scientists?

 

[platos_cave]

My point is the one about 16.1 atoms per gram outflux C14 to N14 vs the 18.8 atoms per gram for C14 production.

The atmospheric content of c14 is affected by a lot of things, including the dipole moment of the electromagnetic field of the Earth, rate of oceanic absorption, sunspots. The studies regarding how these things affect radiometric dating show a differentiation of about 10-15%.

We calibrate our findings through non-isotope dating such as dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.

As far as we can tell, there is no reason to think that from 40,000 years ago to now there is much difference in reliability of C14, based on these studies.

Stuiver, Minze. 1976. "First Miami conference on isotope climatology and paleoclimatology" EOS, vol.57, no.1, pp.830-836
Bailey, Lloyd R. 1989. NOAH: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition University of South Carolina Press, South Carolina

What argument did you have to refute Sewell or Libby? Or was this just a "deny-first-then-ask-question" effort?

I asked for clarification, stop your posturing.

 

[platos_cave]

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death).

What evidence that it has been accelerated in the past? If it's supposedly unobservable, how do you know that?

We know what the ratios of c-12 to c-14 were in the past, we also know that it has remained relatively unchanged for as long as we need to use carbon-14 dating. Not to mention the calibration techniques.

 

[lordkalvan]

For example, where did the SPR figure for carbon-14 that you quote come from?

I think Dr Libby asked Hovind for that information -- as I recall.

Here is an online link in leu of the book -

I am confused. You are saying that Hovind provided the SPR information in the quote you provided that included the quote from Libby? Can you clarify and also provide a reference and link to the original piece you quoted, please, as the 'online link' doesn't relate to either the original quote or the origin of the SPR carbon-14 data. On first reading it appears that the references you quote concentrate mostly on perceived problems in carbon-14 dating without giving at least equal consideration to the methods developed to take such problems into account by the relevant scientists, who are fully aware of those problems and understand that they have to be factored into the methodology of carbon-14 dating in order to return reliable and useful results.

 

[lordkalvan]

More on this 21st century use of C14 dating methods to debunk fraudulent darwinist claims.

Is it your argument therefore that carbon-14 is indeed a reliable method for dating material? This appears at variance with other posts you have made about carbon-14 dating.

Are you also suggesting that, because of Protsch's fraud (a fraud uncovered by non-creationist 'darwinist' science, by the way), all work by all scientists, anthropologists, palaeo-anthropologists and archaeologists everywhere that deals with human origins is inevitably fraudulent?

Or are you suggesting only that any work by such experts associated with the study of Neanderthals is inevitably fraudulent?

Or are you suggesting that, because of Protsch's fraud, only any work anywhere else by other scientists, etc on the origins of Neanderthals and their relationship to homo sapiens is inevitably fraudulent? In this context, I notice that you chose not to quote a further part of the Skeptic's Dictionary article that somewhat undermines your understanding of the significance of the Protsch fraud in relation to the study of Neanderthals:

On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

"was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*

Source; http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

 

[BobRyan]

My point is the one about 16.1 atoms per gram outflux C14 to N14 vs the 18.8 atoms per gram for C14 production.

The atmospheric content of c14 is affected by a lot of things, including the dipole moment of the electromagnetic field of the Earth, rate of oceanic absorption, sunspots. The studies regarding how these things affect radiometric dating show a differentiation of about 10-15%.

Infact the decrease in the magnetic field has been estimated at about 10% over the past 100 years or so. This would cause an increased in the n-0 interaction with N14 which would increase production of C14... thus changing the "ratio" of C14 to C12. However the Carbon inserted into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution tended to lower that ratio somewhat.

In any case -- the problem for evols is that C14 backlog continues to build -- we do not have a state of equilibrium.

This causes two problems but the one I am interested in is that estimate for C14 influx SPR reaching equilibrium with the Beta decay to N14 -- having not yet been reached - indicating that we are something less than 30,0000 years old with this atmosphere.

Any ideas yet?

Bob asks -
What argument did you have to refute Sewell or Libby? Or was this just a "deny-first-then-ask-question" effort?

I asked for clarification, stop your posturing.

oops! Must have hit a nerve.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

More on this 21st century use of C14 dating methods to debunk fraudulent darwinist claims.

Is it your argument therefore that carbon-14 is indeed a reliable method for dating material? This appears at variance with other posts you have made about carbon-14 dating.

Yes I would argue that some assumptions are not correct. However my point in this discussion has nothing to do with radio carbon dating of fossils -- my argument is about the atmospheric N14-C14 production rate vs the Beta-Decay rate of C14-N14 -- and the 30,000 year limit this identifies.

L.K
Are you also suggesting that, because of Protsch's fraud (a fraud uncovered by non-creationist 'darwinist' science, by the way), all work by all scientists, anthropologists, palaeo-anthropologists and archaeologists everywhere that deals with human origins is inevitably fraudulent?

If one is not simply "glossing over the details" in that regard then we notice instantly that atheist darwinists are "once again" the SOURCE for the fraud and the fraud brings up two very interesting questions.

1. What are they doing with those 300 year old Neanderthals anyway (other than claiming they are 20,000 years old)? Breeding them???

2. If Neanderthals are really that modern -- where do they live and why are darwinists still insisting that they do not breed with humans?

You know -- the kind of questions that avoid the "I see nothing... I hear nothing" foxhole defense response of a darwinist - and that get to the real problem with frauds of that kind.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

More on this 21st century use of C14 dating methods to debunk fraudulent darwinist claims.

Is it your argument therefore that carbon-14 is indeed a reliable method for dating material? This appears at variance with other posts you have made about carbon-14 dating.

Yes I would argue that some assumptions are not correct. However my point in this discussion has nothing to do with radio carbon dating of fossils -- my argument is about the atmospheric N14-C14 production rate vs the Beta-Decay rate of C14-N14 -- and the 30,000 year limit this identifies.

Then why did you make the argument that carbon-14 dating 'debunk[ed] fraudulent darwinist claims'? Seems like you want to have your cake and to eat it too. In order to consider the '30,000 year limit' that you believe has been identified, it would be helpful if you could respond to this earlier post:

I am confused. You are saying that Hovind provided the SPR information in the quote you provided that included the quote from Libby? Can you clarify and also provide a reference and link to the original piece you quoted, please, as the 'online link' doesn't relate to either the original quote or the origin of the SPR carbon-14 data. On first reading it appears that the references you quote concentrate mostly on perceived problems in carbon-14 dating without giving at least equal consideration to the methods developed to take such problems into account by the relevant scientists, who are fully aware of those problems and understand that they have to be factored into the methodology of carbon-14 dating in order to return reliable and useful results.

[quote:21u39j65]L.K
Are you also suggesting that, because of Protsch's fraud (a fraud uncovered by non-creationist 'darwinist' science, by the way), all work by all scientists, anthropologists, palaeo-anthropologists and archaeologists everywhere that deals with human origins is inevitably fraudulent?

If one is not simply "glossing over the details" in that regard then we notice instantly that atheist darwinists are "once again" the SOURCE for the fraud and the fraud brings up two very interesting questions.[/quote:21u39j65]
On what grounds have you determined that Protsch is an 'atheist darwinist'? And is Protsch suddenly several persons in that he becomes not only 'atheist' but 'darwinists' in the plural? How many tens of thousands of 'darwinists' do you suppose there are, christian, atheist or otherwise? How many of them do you suppose are engaged in fraud? If one creationist engages in tax fraud, does this mean that all creationists most likely engage in tax fraud?

1. What are they doing with those 300 year old Neanderthals anyway (other than claiming they are 20,000 years old)? Breeding them???

Is this meant as a joke? If you are using the fact that one of Protsch's frauds relates to an 18th Century skull to suggest that all other research on the origins of Neanderthals is equally fraudulent and/or error-ridden, I suggest you find some evidence to support such allegations.

2. If Neanderthals are really that modern -- where do they live and why are darwinists still insisting that they do not breed with humans?

It is a joke, right?

You know -- the kind of questions that avoid the "I see nothing... I hear nothing" foxhole defense response of a darwinist - and that get to the real problem with frauds of that kind.

Are you suggesting that because one or two individuals in particular fields may have been found to engage in fraud, every individual who works in the same fields must inevitably be engaging in fraud?

 

[BobRyan]

Follow the points instead of obfuscating.

1. Your own admitted atheist darwinist sources admit that the Neanderthals in this case were found to be anywhere from 300 years old to 3000 years old when test with C14 -- instead of 26,000 years old as claimed.

That means that the claim is now "adjusted" with that new data so that these Neanderthal remains are "MODERN" not "pre-history" -- which presents you with a NEW problem that you simply try to obfuscate and misdirect away from INSTEAD of answering the point.

2. You have 2008 claims from your own atheist darwinist sources STILL arguing that Neanderthals do not breed with humans -- AND YET we now have known examples that we all agree are only 300 years old in some cases!!

Huge problem for your story telling -- already pointed out -- and still you have yet to address the points raised?? How "instructive".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Follow the points instead of obfuscating.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

1. Your own admitted atheist darwinist sources admit that the Neanderthals in this case were found to be anywhere from 300 years old to 3000 years old when test with C14 -- instead of 26,000 years old as claimed.

That means that the claim is now "adjusted" with that new data so that these Neanderthal remains are "MODERN" not "pre-history" -- which presents you with a NEW problem that you simply try to obfuscate and misdirect away from INSTEAD of answering the point.

Are you seriously proposing that because Protsch cobbled together 'Neanderthal' remains based on fraudulent material and claims, that those remains really were Neanderthals? Are you addled? Did you not read Professor Stringer's comments? Are you wholly unfamiliar with the vast amount of research on Neanderthals that owes absolutely nothing to Protsch?

2. You have 2008 claims from your own atheist darwinist sources STILL arguing that Neanderthals do not breed with humans -- AND YET we now have known examples that we all agree are only 300 years old in some cases!!

What 2008 claims are these, Bob? Please provide links and references. Where is your evidence of 'known examples' of 300-year old Neanderthals breeding with humans? I still think you are trying to make a joke here.

Huge problem for your story telling -- already pointed out -- and still you have yet to address the points raised?? How "instructive".

The only problem I have is trying to decide whether you are being serious.

ETA: By the way, I am still interested in any response you may have to these questions:

On what grounds have you determined that Protsch is an 'atheist darwinist'? And is Protsch suddenly several persons in that he becomes not only 'atheist' but 'darwinists' in the plural? How many tens of thousands of 'darwinists' do you suppose there are, christian, atheist or otherwise? How many of them do you suppose are engaged in fraud? If one creationist engages in tax fraud, does this mean that all creationists most likely engage in tax fraud?

 

[lordkalvan]

By the way, still looking for those links and references for your original quote on carbon-14 plus the origin of the data you mentioned on the SPR/SDR of carbon-14, Bob. I presume you do have references for this material?

 

[platos_cave]

Infact the decrease in the magnetic field has been estimated at about 10% over the past 100 years or so. This would cause an increased in the n-0 interaction with N14 which would increase production of C14... thus changing the "ratio" of C14 to C12. However the Carbon inserted into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution tended to lower that ratio somewhat.

It was shown to change the ratio by no more than 10-15%, which is accounted for in radiometric dating and then calibrated through non-isotopic dating methods.

In any case -- the problem for evols is that C14 backlog continues to build -- we do not have a state of equilibrium.

So? That isn't a problem if you're aware of it and can account for it in your dating methods through corroborative evidence.

This causes two problems but the one I am interested in is that estimate for C14 influx SPR reaching equilibrium with the Beta decay to N14 -- having not yet been reached - indicating that we are something less than 30,0000 years old with this atmosphere.

Except that you're assuming that this has been constant, which it isn't.