Under video with Hovind / Ludlow debate:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 56:54 "samples must be younger than 50 000 years and older then 100 years"
Bill Ludlow is highlighting an article with a misleading selection. Note, it does not say "Capital S: Samples must be ... etc. Full Stop."
It says in full :
"Since there are practical limits to the age range of the method, most samples must be younger than 50,000 years and older than 100 years."
Well, this is another pair of boots altogether!
Now, practical limit about "younger than 50 000 years" means probably that after 50 000 years not enough carbon 14 is supposed to be left, distinguishable from later contamination.
But a coal sample traditionally dated to 20 million years ago was dated to 36 000 years ago - meaning that even if you find more C14 than for 50 000 years ago, by now an evolutionist would need to say contamination is possible there too.
And how mineral coal which is a very near pure sample of the C14/C12 ratio could be sufficiently contaminated by much less pure contaminations of carbon from other sources:
Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict
As to "older than 100 years", well, that would indicate that fluctuations smaller than 98.798 percent modern carbon could happen within atmosphere we have (the seal and the mollusk would be examples of another problem, "reservoir effect", since they have gotten lots of "old carbon" through the water they were living in).
That frame is therefore +/- 1.2 %.
Let's take the two carbon dates from same/different animal:
16.292 pmc = 15 000 years ago
7.884 pmc = 21 000 years ago
Well, the discrepancy between the two dates are a bit bigger than +/- 1.2 pmc. I'd say they are different animals.
But they were probably animals from the timespan between Flood and Babel (in which atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was rising in a few centuries from 2 pmc to c. 40 pmc).
Both have a bit more than 50 % of original carbon content left, since they are both less than one half life old. The difference between them is that the original carbon content grew in the time between them. And that means that someone presuming original carbon content to have been 100 percent modern carbon (or pmc) or close enough (variation around +/- 1.2 pmc) will date both way older than they are and also put more than one half life between them, since they differ in a ratio more than 2:1.
Well, the slide by Kent Hovind was wrong, but he could have got it from a secondary source and a bad reading.
He has been a bit too sceptic about learning anything from carbon dating, I disagree, but so what? He has put the finger on the spot (like Edgar Andrews and probably Henry Morris), that if sth originally had far less C14 than 100 pmc and the ones dating it assume it had 100 pmc, their interpretation (good that Kent insists on that word) will give the thing a way too old age.
This point remains valid even if Bill Ludlow can accurately point out that Kent Hovind has been inaccurate in an amateurish way. An argument which is logically valid does not become invalid if it is presented in amateurish ways.
Aristotle's best argument for Earth being round was Gibraltar being just East of Ganges. It is not, but logically the proof is exactly the same which was 2000 years nearly later given by Magellan. So, Magellan proved Aristotle right, even if already Eratosthenes proved him inaccurate.
- Steve McRae Owner of the GDC
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the (major) point you miss here is that carbon dating will only give you a lower bound. If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old. Meaning that that is the LOWEST possible age, but it does not give you an upper bound. So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old."
1) The Creationists are using the latest method, meaning the result is not "beyond detectable carbon", but "carbon detected".If a sample dates 36 k years and the detection limit is 50 k years (or rather : corresponding carbon level), the result means "carbon detected".
This means it is indeed an upper bound, unless you presume that :
a) original carbon content was orders of magnitude higher than 100 pmc
b) or that new carbon 14 has formed within sample.
Those are the options for it not being an upper bound.
2) You are presuming the methods by which the sample or where it is from is dated to billions of years (methods other than carbon, obviously) are worth anything : I think you are wrong on any of these methods.
Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood.
"So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything."
How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?
As I took up coal from "20 million years old" dated to 36 k years, what is the method by which you presume the coal is from 20 million years ago rather than from Flood?
Plus, your having a point would make any carbon date moot, how does one know it isn't too old?
But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless.
- First attempt
- in a library:
Fortunately, I could get it better later, but this kind of hampering conditions is hampering my work some!
- Steve McRae (Great Debate Community)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl There isn't an upper bound when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect. Why creationists do not understand this is beyond me.
"Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood."
There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood.
"How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?"
You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron.
"But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless."
The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- " when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect"
Per se, the lab test is detecting carbon, not a date.
And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect.
The date is just an interpretation of that.
"There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood."
False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth.
"You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron. / The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless."
You have just missed the chance of making a case for the method in order to make a case againt me instead, like Ludlow does against Hovind.
How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos? How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings?
Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!
- Steve McRae
- +Hans-George Lundahl "And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect"
It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years. Now tell me how you know that it is 30k years old, or 100 million. Go ahead...
"False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth."
Um, no...actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood. And every flood story is radically different at radically different times.
"How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos?"
It was...Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions. He was utterly deceptive and this has long since been debunked.
" How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings? "
Evidence please? Even RATES admited that isochron dating methods indicate an old Earth. In fact I will be discussing this with Dr. Humphrey's in a week or two. Geochronological dating formulas for isochron dating work. YEC's however have tried to have an ad hoc explanation to explain it away using "accelerated decay"...which they have utterly been unable to demonstrate, as well as explain the "heat problem" it would create.
"Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!"
Clearly you don't know what "ad hominem" means, I recommend you look it up as I have directly addressed your arguments.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years"
It comes back 30k years = it shows 2.654 pmc = within detectable limit.
Impossible after 100 million, but possible after for instance 5000 years, if for instance carbon content then was close to 5 pmc, as opposed to the 20 times more which the presupposition is behind the reading 30k years.
"actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood."
DATED to during the Flood. You don't have a complete welldocumented chronology of history saying we are year so and so after Menes united both Egypts.
A flood 5000 years ago = > Egypt started later than 5000 years ago, carbon dates are off due to lower carbon content back from the times of Buto and Hieraconopolis.
"Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions."
There is nothing deceptive about testing a method by tests outside usual range.
"It has been debunked" = how?
Next one, here is Snelling on isochron:
CMI : Radioactive dating method ‘under fire’
by Andrew A. Snelling
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-method-under-fire
"as I have directly addressed your arguments."
This time, yes, the previous time you just pretended I don't understand isochron or K-Ar.
I understand K-Ar better than isochron, but both enough to know there is a faulty assumption somewhere, and in K-Ar I am equipped to say which one, excess argon cannot be ruled out.
No comments:
Post a Comment