a 350,000-year-old pink stone axe

[Yog^sothoth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2885663.stm

Just thought I'd try and see everyone but Socrates' opinion on this matter (I already know what Socrates is going to say, no need to post it:rofl: ). There have been a few really interesting finds lately in the whole quest for human evolutionary origins. We keep pushing back the beginning date earlier and earlier (human beginnings almost 7million years ago, human culture with this find to 350,000 year ago) and it's interesting that as time progresses how things change. We were talking about a theory which was reported one way by the professor, reported another way in our text book and tested another way on our exam. Tis the way of science! :thumb: :spam:

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45256#post45256)
Yog^sothoth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2885663.stm

Just thought I'd try and see everyone but Socrates' opinion on this matter (I already know what Socrates is going to say, no need to post it:rofl: ). There have been a few really interesting finds lately in the whole quest for human evolutionary origins. We keep pushing back the beginning date earlier and earlier (human beginnings almost 7million years ago, human culture with this find to 350,000 year ago) and it's interesting that as time progresses how things change. We were talking about a theory which was reported one way by the professor, reported another way in our text book and tested another way on our exam. Tis the way of science! :thumb: :spam:

I used to be impressed by all the "scientific" dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail.

It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly.

Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

[Woman]

Socratism:
I used to be impressed by all the "scientific" dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail.

I'd be interested in that journey. How deeply did you research? How varied were your sources? Have you kept current to see if more recent findings would tend to affirm or negate ideas?

By the way Yog, interesting link. I'll be looking forward to the BBC Special series "Walking with Cavemen" beginning tomorrow!

If Soc hated Walking with Dinosaurs, he's really gonna destest this one.

[Yog^sothoth]

Hey, you should tape it and send it to me because i'm not going to have time to watch! :bawl: :spam:

[Socrates]

Woman:If Soc hated Walking with Dinosaurs, he's really gonna destest this one.As part of the British Commonwealth, we're way ahead of you on this one. And AiG has critiqued the former at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4276news4-15-2000.asp

[bar Jonah]

When they can't even date objects of known age, it boggles my mind that any serious scientist continues to put any stock in such fallacious techniques like carbon dating and radiometric isotope dating to date objects of unknown age. :hrm:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58229#post58229)
RightIdea:

When they can't even date objects of known age, it boggles my mind that any serious scientist continues to put any stock in such fallacious techniques like carbon dating and radiometric isotope dating to date objects of unknown age. :hrm:

Except for the fact that they can date objects of known age. Geologists aren't stupid.

[tgamble]

03-26-2003 @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45259#post45259)
Socratism:

I used to be impressed by all the "scientific" dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail.


Unlike the thousands of geologists,including those in dating labs, who never bothered. LOL!

:bonk: :bonk:

Reading AIG propaganda doesn't count as looking at dating methods in detail.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58233#post58233)
RufusAtticus:



Except for the fact that they can date objects of known age. Geologists aren't stupid.
Right. So when they do radiometric isotope dating on rocks that are only a half-century old, and they come back testing as supposedly over a million years old... that's your vaunted accuracy?

So when we test rocks overhanging the Grand Canyon, and compare them to a layer of basalt underneath the bottom of the canyon, and the rocks at the top test as being millions of years older than the basalt at the bottom... that's your accuracy?

When we perform carbon dating on different parts from the carcass of a single animal, and the several tests come back showing ages literally thousands of years apart... that's your accuracy?

[tgamble]

03-26-2003 @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45361#post45361)
Socrates:

Woman:If Soc hated Walking with Dinosaurs, he's really gonna destest this one.As part of the British Commonwealth, we're way ahead of you on this one. And AiG has critiqued the former at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4276news4-15-2000.asp

"65% of life, they say, was killed when a comet struck the Earth, but this assumes that the fossil record is a tape recording of events spanning millions of years, and not the burial sequence of billions of organisms in the global Flood described in the Bible."

:rofl: :rofl:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58241#post58241)
RightIdea:

Right. So when they do radiometric isotope dating on rocks that are only a half-century old, and they come back testing as supposedly over a million years old... that's your vaunted accuracy?

I hope you can support this claim with citations from the scientific literature.

So when we test rocks overhanging the Grand Canyon, and compare them to a layer of basalt underneath the bottom of the canyon, and the rocks at the top test as being millions of years older than the basalt at the bottom... that's your accuracy?

I hope you can support this claim with citations from the scientific literature.

When we perform carbon dating on different parts from the carcass of a single animal, and the several tests come back showing ages literally thousands of years apart... that's your accuracy?

I hope you can support this claim with citations from the scientific literature.

You have made three claims about the inaccuracy of radiometric dating, but have given no references to the scientific studies involved. Unless you can support your claims, your complaints have no weight.

As I have explained in other threads on radiometric dating, radiometric dating does work, but like all measuring techniques if it is used improperly then it will not give accurate results.

[tgamble]

When we perform carbon dating on different parts from the carcass of a single animal, and the several tests come back showing ages literally thousands of years apart... that's your accuracy?


I wonder if he's talking about Kent Hovind and his claims about the Mammoth?

[wienerdog]

Socratism wrote:

Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

I agree that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative. I disagree that the Genesis narrative teaches a short age for the earth and probably the universe as well. I have studied the various dating techniques as well, including the common young earth objections to them, and concluded that these techniques are valid.

[lordsnooty]

03-26-2003 @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45259#post45259)
Socratism:
It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly.

Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

Oh, the irony! The irony!

<raises hands to the sky, before slumping forwards in dispair>

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 10:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58273#post58273)
tgamble:
I wonder if he's talking about Kent Hovind and his claims about the Mammoth?

Kent diploma mill Hovind looked looked at a mammoth? I'd love to read about his fascinating findings.

I've always had the greatest respect for Kent diploma mill Hovind. He is a true diploma mill scholar.

Paul

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58412#post58412)
lordsnooty:

Kent diploma mill Hovind looked looked at a mammoth?

LOL! Of course not! He read a paper and made the claim. Of course, the paper didn't support his claim. But that's rather typical of that quack.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_fractured_fairy_tales.htm

[Woman]

Socratism:
I used to be impressed by all the "scientific" dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail.

It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly.

Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

You continue to amaze us all. I have started to count the number of times you have claimed to be a former dupe of science who suddenly found God and the Truth about the age of the planet. (and possibly the others too?)

I guess you think you are "helping the cause" for belief in Genesis. You are not. In fact, I ought to just hush and let you continue to prove the point that Science makes sense.

I cannot truly believe that you were a strong proponant of a theory about which you knew little, though you continue to insist you were. Then apparantly one day, out of boredom or curiousity, you decided to "study" evolution and carbon-dating methodology...(where did you get the resource material?) whereby you came to the obvious conclusion that geologists are all delusional and that the only plausible alternative explanation for everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-but-were-too-lazy-to-ask was....*drum roll* GENESIS!

Yeah, that makes sense. I can see where anyone who was a former "student" of old-earth evolution would flip like that! :no:

But, I digress. When I get the final tally, I'll let you know how many times you have begged us to believe that you are a convert and thus your witnessing for YEC is precious.

*sigh* Science loses another fine mind. :bawl:

[Socrates]

Socratism:

I used to be impressed by all the "scientific" dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail.

It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly.

Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

Woman:
You continue to amaze us all. I have started to count the number of times you have claimed to be a former dupe of science who suddenly found God and the Truth about the age of the planet. (and possibly the others too?) When did Socratism ever claimed to be duped by science (i.e. physics, chemistry, etc.)? Clearly, what he rejected was a materialistic framework of HISTORY masquerading as science.I guess you think you are "helping the cause" for belief in Genesis. You are not. What do you care? I share his "cause" and I'm happy.In fact, I ought to just hush and let you continue to prove the point that Science makes sense.Science DOES make sense, which is why evolution does NOT!I cannot truly believe that you were a strong proponant of a theory about which you knew little,And are you an expert?

[Socrates]

Don't write off all creationists because of Kent Hovind. AiG has its misgivings about him too, as shown in this article which comes highly recommended by Woman :thumb:: Maintaining Creationist Integrity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp).

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58483#post58483)
Socrates:

Don't write off all creationists because of Kent Hovind. AiG has its misgivings about him too, as shown in this article which comes highly recommended by Woman :thumb:: Maintaining Creationist Integrity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp).

Two irony meters in one day! :rofl: :rofl:

[Bald Ape]

Yesterday @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58241#post58241)
RightIdea:


Right. So when they do radiometric isotope dating on rocks that are only a half-century old, and they come back testing as supposedly over a million years old... that's your vaunted accuracy?

So when we test rocks overhanging the Grand Canyon, and compare them to a layer of basalt underneath the bottom of the canyon, and the rocks at the top test as being millions of years older than the basalt at the bottom... that's your accuracy?

When we perform carbon dating on different parts from the carcass of a single animal, and the several tests come back showing ages literally thousands of years apart... that's your accuracy?

Here's a little thought experiment for Socratism and RightIdea.

Imagine there are eight scales (numbered 1 through 8), which we will use to determine the mass of a penny. Helping us out are Andy, Becky, Chip, and Darla. Andy steps on scale 1, and gets a reading of 211.3 lbs. Next, Andy picks up a penny, and steps on scale2, getting a reading of 211.8 lbs. Becky, Chip, and Darla do the same using scales 3&4, 5&6, and 7&8, respectively. The following data is returned:

Name Reading w/o Reading w/ Weight of
penny penny penny
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------------
Andy 211.3 211.8 0.5 lbs
Becky 134.9 134.1 -0.8 lbs
Chip 189.4 187.8 -1.6 lbs
Darla 119.0 120.3 1.3 lbs

Based on these results, what conclusion should we immediately jump to?
A) The penny weighs approximately -0.6 lbs.
B) Since pennies obviously do not weigh -0.6 lbs, it's quite clear that scales in general should never be trusted to measure the wieght of any object.

Question 1: Can either RightIdea or Socratism critique the methodology in designing this experiment (or would seeing these results in real life convince them to forever swear off the use of scales to assess their body weights)?

Question 2 (bonus): Can either of them apply those same criticisms to the methodologies responsible for the results that allegedly "disprove" the accuracy of radiometric dating methods?

[Woman]

Socrates:

When did Socratism ever claimed to be duped by science (i.e. physics, chemistry, etc.)? Clearly, what he rejected was a materialistic framework of HISTORY masquerading as science.

He has repeatedly claimed that he believed in an old earth because he "trusted" radio-carbon dating methods until he "really looked at it in detail." He gives no indication of why he ASSUMES so much. ie. first he "assumed" that old-earth/evolution was correct - then he read something that challenged dating methods so he ASSUMED it was correct and evolution was impossible so then he ASSUMED that Genesis was more scientific.

Woman: I guess you think you are "helping the cause" for belief in Genesis. You are not.

Soc:
What do you care? I share his "cause" and I'm happy.
I'm happy you're happy, Soc. :cool:

Woman: In fact, I ought to just hush and let you continue to prove the point that Science makes sense.

Soc:
Science DOES make sense, which is why evolution does NOT!

Let's talk about the age of the earth then. One step at a time!

Women: I cannot truly believe that you were a strong proponant of a theory about which you knew little...

Soc:
And are you an expert?

Heck no - that's why I continue to read evidence on both sides of issues.

:tongue:

[Pilgrim]

Out in california, we found some artifacts in the Santa Cruz mountains that Dr. Rick Oliver (PhD Evolutionary Biology) sent to be dated. The result from the first lab came back at 1500 years and the second lab sent back a result of 100,000 years.

Rick sat back and had a good laugh because the peice of wood was from an out house a camp built no more than 20 years ago.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59360#post59360)
Pilgrim:

Out in california, we found some artifacts in the Santa Cruz mountains that Dr. Rick Oliver (PhD Evolutionary Biology) sent to be dated. The result from the first lab came back at 1500 years and the second lab sent back a result of 100,000 years.

Rick sat back and had a good laugh because the peice of wood was from an out house a camp built no more than 20 years ago.
Pilgrim,

You have also qualified for my above test. What conclusions would you draw about the weight of a penny? About the accuracy of the scale? About the methodology used to design the experiment?

When you are done, please quote a source, anywhere, that includes "0.020 kya" within the timeline that carbon dating can be used to accurately age artifacts.

Then, try your hand at criticizing the brilliant experimental methods used by your doctorate friend. I'll bet you don't need my help.

Editted to add: Please tell us, what labs were the sample sent to? Were they sent, for instance, to 15 local high school chemistry labs? Were they sent to a lab full of undergrad chem students? How many other labs reported back? With what precision were the results reported? What were the sample numbers, so that I can communicate with those labs, and inquire about the measurments (in most cases, these things are serialized, and stored on databases). Most professional scientists would keep records of such things, just give ole Dr. Rick a call and have him look it up. What steps did Rick take to prevent any contamination of his samples? How did Rick's doctorate studies in Evolutionary Biology lend to his expertise in extracting carbon based artifacts w/o contaminating them? Since it is not possible for C-14 to yield dates greater than 75kya (which a "zero reading" of C-14 by all but the world's most sensitive apparatti), why would any lab report 100kya (without some associated comment)?

[JesusFreakVOM]

you may put your hope in monkey science, but i dont know of any monkeys that can save your soul!!!

[JesusFreakVOM]

congrats on finding the truth. its a hard thing to do in an age of relative truth. darryl.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59360#post59360)
Pilgrim:

Out in california, we found some artifacts in the Santa Cruz mountains that Dr. Rick Oliver (PhD Evolutionary Biology) sent to be dated. The result from the first lab came back at 1500 years and the second lab sent back a result of 100,000 years.

Rick sat back and had a good laugh because the peice of wood was from an out house a camp built no more than 20 years ago.

I doubt you have reported this accurately since radiometric dating returns a range of ages not just a single ages. Do you happen to know what the sizes of the ranges were around these dates? What methods did they use to date it? C-14 wouldn't give a measurement of 100,000 years for example.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 04:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59408#post59408)
Bald Ape:


Pilgrim,

You have also qualified for my above test. What conclusions would you draw about the weight of a penny? About the accuracy of the scale? About the methodology used to design the experiment?

When you are done, please quote a source, anywhere, that includes &quot;0.020 kya&quot; within the timeline that carbon dating can be used to accurately age artifacts.

Then, try your hand at criticizing the brilliant experimental methods used by your doctorate friend. I'll bet you don't need my help.

Editted to add: Please tell us, what labs were the sample sent to? Were they sent, for instance, to 15 local high school chemistry labs? Were they sent to a lab full of undergrad chem students? How many other labs reported back? With what precision were the results reported? What were the sample numbers, so that I can communicate with those labs, and inquire about the measurments (in most cases, these things are serialized, and stored on databases). Most professional scientists would keep records of such things, just give ole Dr. Rick a call and have him look it up. What steps did Rick take to prevent any contamination of his samples? How did Rick's doctorate studies in Evolutionary Biology lend to his expertise in extracting carbon based artifacts w/o contaminating them? Since it is not possible for C-14 to yield dates greater than 75kya (which a &quot;zero reading&quot; of C-14 by all but the world's most sensitive apparatti), why would any lab report 100kya (without some associated comment)?


The samples were sent to two labs in California, I assure you they were not highschool. I'll email Dr. Oliver ( You may know of him he was one of the scientists at Mt. St Helen when it blew) and ask which labs he used. I want to say UCD since that is where his PhD is from but I think they were independent labs not University ones.

[Pilgrim]

It's very possible I have the dates wrong on that...I remember it was something obsurd but not the specific, I'll see what I can dig up.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 08:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59690#post59690)
Pilgrim:

It's very possible I have the dates wrong on that...I remember it was something obsurd but not the specific, I'll see what I can dig up.

I look forward to it. While you're at it, could you ask Dr. Oliver why he sent 20 year old samples for a carbon dating analysis (perhaps inquiring as to whether he understands Carbon dating, and, more pertinantly, why it couldn't conceivably accurately date a 20 year old sample). Further, did you happen to read my thought experiment above? Would such results cause you to think twice about trusting a scale to measure your body weight? If not, why not?

[Butters]

"you may put your hope in monkey science, but i dont know of any monkeys that can save your soul!!!"

I do, Reverend BoBo, the faith healing monkey, give him a banana, let him lay hands on you, your saved!


"It's very possible I have the dates wrong on that...I remember it was something obsurd but not the specific, I'll see what I can dig up."


I'm not sure of the date, time, circumstance, or any detail, but I remember it disproved a old earth, so that's all I need to believe!
How many times have I seen that. It's just the oppisite of all those little miracle stories my Christian freinds send me. Where, when, what, who? No one knows, but it is proof God works miracles!

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the experiment? Obviously in that one experiment you have scales that are not calibrated to one another. Perhaps if they had all used the same scale? Or if they weighed the penny by itself?

For the record, I'm not a YEC.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 07:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60203#post60203)
Pilgrim:

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the experiment? Obviously in that one experiment you have scales that are not calibrated to one another. Perhaps if they had all used the same scale? Or if they weighed the penny by itself?

Yeap you need to weigh the penny by itself, but not on scales designed to measure human weight. That is because the actual weight of the penny is within the error margin of such scales.

[JesusFreakVOM]

youll be one of the funniest guys in hell.

[Pilgrim]

Interestingly enough alot of the kids in my youth group have been talking about this type of thing and dating of rocks and artifacts etc and how it all fits in with faith and Christianity. I emailed Rick asking him about this story for thier benefit and what I learned is that the sample in question was a piece of 2x4 wood from an old shower house that had turned to coal. (It's in the Redwoods)

The sample was sent to various labs across the US and the results came back from 1700 to 3000 years. They were tested using carbon dating which is possible for coal.

In response to issues of contamination I don't really know. If the method is that easily corrupted then I'm not sure how reliable it is to begin with. They simply took the piece of wood and had samples of it shipped to various labs across the US for independant testing. It was done as part of an Outdoor Science Camp that operates in Santa Cruz California.

Another anecdote, I remember a story a few years back about a wierd stone structure found in Luray Caverns I believe that was tested and found to be over 1000 years old. While chipping at the stone it split to reveal a coal miners lantern helmet. The entire formation had been from deposits dripping on top of the helmet over a period of at most 50 years.

Not being a scientist myself I am willing to concede that such anecdotal offerings may very well be exceptions to the rule given that no test is ever perfect. But still it make me wonder.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 10:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60313#post60313)
JesusFreakVOM:

youll be one of the funniest guys in hell.

Sorry, I have no plans on moving to central Michigan.

[Pilgrim]

Hey now, I live in...wait, I'm in South East Michigah...ok, you may continue.

[Xmansmommy]

:rofl: Whew! That clears me too Pilgrim. :thumb:

[RufusAtticus]

I'm not refering to Central Michigan in toto, but rather the city of Hell that is in Central Michigan.

[Butters]

considering that 99% of every human that ever lived will be in hell, I doubt any of us will be the funniest.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60567#post60567)
Butters:

considering that 99% of every human that ever lived will be in hell, I doubt any of us will be the funniest.
Based on what? I think the percentage is low, but not nearly that low. :smile:

[Butters]

Well, I guess it depends on what you believe. Despite the fact that most christians tell me they know the "absolute truth" no two can seem to agree on what thet "absolute truth" is.
But even if you take the Bible literaly, it's close to 99%. A few Hebrews worshiped God, after the fall, but not many. I would assume that all the people that died in the flood went straight to hell, after all, they were so evil that God had to destroy the planet. Right after that man quits worshiping God again, execpt for a few Jews. Of course after Jesus came, no more Jews can go to heaven, because they reject Jesus, so then only Christians can make it. Even with the use of the sword, and stake, Christianity only really took hold in Europe for the most part, a small minority of the world population. Even today, what is it, 1/5 of the world calls themselves christians? And out of that you have, dozens of major sects, all telling each other that they are going to hell. Plus all the people that call themselves Christians, but do things like yoke themselves to unbelievers, or accept evolution. (Even a large percentage of Christians are going to hell, Unless you accept the salvation by words, accepting Jesus, discounts your actions) So what, Do you think That 99% is a fair number?

[JesusFreakVOM]

pilgrim, the dating method is based on presupositions that assume an old earth. so its really a duck in a nice suit. but still a duck.

[Pilgrim]

It was a test that was sent in by a YEC to see what kind of answer he would get. I'm not sure what your point is?

[RufusAtticus]

Well, Pilgrim, when you get what the actual date ranges were we can discuss this better.

Do you know if the wood was treated at all? If it was with a petroleum by-product that would definately throw off the age.

Also, where did you get that Oliver's PhD was in Evolutionary Biology? The Mount Hermon page lists him as having degrees in herpetology (well biology w/ emphasis in herpetology).

[Pilgrim]

Ruffus, look back a few posts, I posted the range of dates that were returned. The range was from 1700 to 3000 years. It was a normal 2x4 from the inside frame of an out house so no pressure treating or painting as far as I know.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61700#post61700)
Pilgrim:

Ruffus, look back a few posts, I posted the range of dates that were returned. The range was from 1700 to 3000 years. It was a normal 2x4 from the inside frame of an out house so no pressure treating or painting as far as I know.

Okay, thanx I missed that.

Is the 1700-3000, the overlap of ranges returned or the range of the means returned? I'm more interested in the predicted variance that each lab returned, because that will tell you how much stock they put into the sample.

Considering that it was an outhouse, I'd be suprised if it didn't have some sort of treatment.

[Bald Ape]

Pilgrim (and anyone else who wants to learn a bit about the dishonest nature of Pilgrim's friend's "experiment"),

The point of my hypothetical was to demonstrate the absurd results one can get when doing a small number of measurements for a data range where the expected noise-to-signal ratio is very large. I mean, it is quite evident that the method I used is not viable for measuring the mass of pennies (pennies do not weight -0.6 pounds), largely because the scales being used seem to have a "noise range" of 2 pounds, and the penny's mass is probably less than 1% of that.

For contrast, notice that the method works pretty well if, for instance, I have set the experiment up to weigh concrete blocks of 25 pounds or more.

If I ran the exact same experiment as above, but using such a block, I might get the following results:

Name Reading w/o Reading w/ Weight of
block block block
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------------
Andy 211.3 244.8 33.5 lbs
Becky 134.9 167.1 32.2 lbs
Chip 189.4 220.8 31.4 lbs
Darla 119.0 152.3 33.3 lbs

The obvious point: you cannot discard the accuracy of a measuring method by attempting to measure objects that are smaller than the error margin of the method.

Unfortunately, as I read back through it, my penny vs. block analogy misses out on the full richness of how dishonest and misleading your friend's results are (by the way, feel free to offer him the option of defending himself or his integrity on this board). There are two components missing from my above analogy - which show that your friend should have not only expected incorrect results, but should have actually known that he would get gross overestimates of the age.

Component 1: Unavoidable mis-calibration
Imagine you want to get a quick estimate of the rate at which snow is falling outside. To do this, you place a small black plate on your sidewalk, and you count how many snowflakes hit it per minute. You soon learn that a very small plate doesn't work well, because during light snowfalls, hardly any snowflakes hit the plate at all. Similarly, you learn that very large plates have so many snowflake landings so quickly during heavy snowstorms, you cannot keep count of all of them. After a wide variety of snowstorms, which drop snow from 1 inch per hour to 6 inches per hour, you find that the plate with a 3 inch diameter is perfect: just big enough to count a fairly large number of snowflake landings during 1inch/hr snowstorms, but small enough that you don't miss many snowflake landings during the 6inch/hr storms. Your setup works fine, until a blizzard drops 12 inches in one hour - so fast that you can't keep up with the number of hits (in fact, despite your best efforts, you miss 25% of the snowflake landings) - causing you to estimate a 9 inch/hour rate.

The exact same situation occurs in Carbon dating - instead of counting snowflakes, instruments are used to count C-14 atoms. Sending in a sample with no estimate (e.g. one which could be anywhere from 5,000 years old or younger to 50,000 years old or older) is like asking a snowflake counter who is expecting 1 - 6 inches per hour storms to measure a storm of 18 inches/hour.

Just as trying to use a 3-inch plate to measure a 18 inch / hour storm might "under-count" by 20% to 30%, one would expect a generic C-14 counter (expecting a 5kya to 50kya sample) to under-count a 20 year sample (which would have 500 times more C-14 than the 50kya samples) by 20% to 30%.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume your friend either gave no expected date whatsoever, or gave a misleading expected date when he sent the samples in, much like I might ask you to expect an average snowfall, only to leave you in a heavy blizzard with your 3-inch plate. Just as I would expect this to cause you to underestimate the amount of snow by 30%, so too did you friend know this could cause to an undercount of 20% - 30% of the amount of C-14.

Component 2: Exponential relationship.
It gets much, much worse. In my snowflake analogy, a 25% error in measurement led to a 25% error in prediction. For instance, when the snowflake counter undercounted the 12inch/hour snowstorm by 25%, the estimated snowfall rate of 9 inch/hour was off from the actual by only 25%. That is because the measurment and result were linearly related. In carbon dating, which is based on exponential decay, the measurement of C-14 is exponentially related to the estimated age. This makes the consequences of an undercount much more dramatic. A minute under-count of just 1% of the C-14 in a 20-year-old sample would lead to a projected age of 83 years ago (error = 400%). Incredibly, just a 5% under-count would actually yield an age of 423 years ago (error = 2000%!!). Based on your friend's results, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the labs did fairly well (as well as could be expected). The 3000 year old prediction resolves to an undercount of 30%, while the 1700 year old lab resolves to an undercount of only 19%.

Again, I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your friend was thinking when he sent those samples in, and the pretexts under which they were analyzed.

[Pilgrim]

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...the point is that carbon dated is not intended to, nor particularly effective for measuring the age of recent artifacts. Right?

If so that makes perfect sense to me and I see your point.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62025#post62025)
Pilgrim:

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...the point is that carbon dated is not intended to, nor particularly effective for measuring the age of recent artifacts. Right?

If so that makes perfect sense to me and I see your point.

Well... sort of. If the C-14 measuring aparatus was calibrated to measure the amount of C-14 expected for a "relatively young" artifact (e.g. 100 years old), then you'd be able to get a *hint* of how old it was. Even so, the signal to noise ratio would be incredibly small, so you would need to do tens if not hundreds of measurements to actually discern a 100 year old object from an 80 year old (just like my original penny experiment, if carried out thousands of times, would eventually give a difference between the weight of a penny and that of a dime).

I must emphasize that the real difference is made by the miscalibration. This could have been just as devestating the other way around - if the apparatus was calibrated to discern the age of relatively young artifacts, and you dated a 10,000 year-old item, the incredibly weak signal of the 10,000 year old item might be indestinguishable from a 5,000 year old or 20,000 year old object.

There are simply very few instruments in the realm of scientific measurement that can accuratly measure over a range spanning more than 2 orders of magnitude.

To conclude, in the case of your friend's sample, I will wager $500 dollars that if your friend could sent them back to the labs which gave the 1700 to 3000 year old ranges with the following note attached:
"Please tell me whether this sample is from a 1,7000 - 3,000 year old archeological dig, or is a modern-day contaminant", 9 out of 10 reputable labs would answer correctly (that the sample is modern, not 2,400 years old).
I'd wager $50 that your friend would know well enough not to waste his time trying to show me wrong.

[RufusAtticus]

Pilgrim,

On that note. I did some more diging and found that C-14 dates have a lower limit of 55 years.

In fact, something I should have mentioned earlier when the outhouse was brought up is that c-14 dates use 1950 AD as 0 BP. Thus a date of 50 BP would be for 1900 AD.

I also found out that volcanic activity can drastically increase the calculated age of a sample. Was the sample that was sent from around the Mt. St. Helens area?

[Pilgrim]

No, from the Red Woods of California.

[Pilgrim]

Although data from Mt. St. Helens has some important things to add to this whole conversation I think. The floating mat for instance.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62077#post62077)
Pilgrim:

No, from the Red Woods of California.

Ahhh that might be it. Wood has inbuilt age error, especially long lived species like red woods. To minimize such errors, radiochemists recommend dating twigs or short-lived species. Neither of which was done in this case. This page (http://www.c14dating.com/charc.html) gives a good explaination of the age error. The old age probably reflects the fact that the 2x4 in question came from the central part of an old redwood.

[AtheistArchon]

- Remember also that in most cases, a variance of 500k years or so is completely beside the point in carbon dating. Let's say the average variance is 500k years. What does that tell us about a specimen dated to 64 million years ago?

- I personally would be okay with saying 63.5 million instead. No problem. :wink:

[bobazilla]

Atheist Archon - I believe that c-14 dating is limited to somewhat less than 100k years.

I'm suprised that the creationists haven't picked up on the business of "calibrating" the date. I understand (and thanks for the info Bald Ape) why it is necessary, but by doing that it may be possible to "preassume" your conclusion.

If I find something that I think is approximately 45000 years old and sent it off to a lab and based on that the lab then assumed it to be that age....what age will the lab report if the sample is really 20000 years old? 6000 years old?

Creationists could then claim that the finder is preloading the conclusion to his materialistic misotheist point of view. Have any Creationists actually claimed this?

[Bald Ape]

bobazilla (and pilgrim),

Sometimes I wish I knew when to shut my trap. Rufus' explanation of the discrepency was much more reasonable (and not coincidentally, simpler) than mine. I guess you could say I got so wound up into the math and analogies that I missed the obvious.

Anyway, it was pure speculation on my part that calibration errors could occur at this scope, but doggone it, the numbers just seemed to fit so well! :) In retrospect, it's probably highly unlikely that errors in C-14 measurments on a scale of +/- 30% would occur in a qualified lab. In fact, the entire premise that proper calibration is needed is probably bunk as well - think about it: if the lab started with a instrument calibrated to measure 50kya to 5kya, and got the measurement of 1700 years ago (as I supposed), then the obvious thing to do is toss out the 1700 year-ago meausurment, recalibrate for < 5000kya, and remeasure. Regardless of whether you start over or under the actual age, this methodical approach will always retrieve the correct age.

Sigh. Apologies to all for wasting their time - I'll just be over in the corner for awhile, foot in mouth :)

[bar Jonah]

Yesterday @ 07:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62445#post62445)
AtheistArchon:

- Remember also that in most cases, a variance of 500k years or so is completely beside the point in carbon dating. Let's say the average variance is 500k years. What does that tell us about a specimen dated to 64 million years ago?
What a hilarious statement, since by definition a carbon dating test can only come back with a date no older than 50,000 years. LOL

Carbon 14 cannot possibly continue to exist longer than 50,000 years. Period. It is an unstable element, and disintigrates at a steady rate until it has completely broken down. So if an object contains Carbon 14, the absolute maximum age of that thing is 50,000 years.

Which makes it very interesting that we've found unfossilized dinosaur remains with carbon 14. Interesting that old earthers claim all petroleum is from prehistoric plant material, and yet there's never been a sample of petroleum from anywhere in the world that didn't test positive for carbon 14.

500,000 years??? LOL 64 million years? :lol: Atheist Archon, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are doing nothing less than just making stuff up in order to be part of the conversation.

[AtheistArchon]

What a hilarious statement, since by definition a carbon dating test can only come back with a date no older than 50,000 years. LOL

- Mea culpa... I didn't read back far enough to realize that we were talking about C-14 exclusively instead of other radiometric dating methods. I misspoke when I said "carbon dating". Next time, I'll read the whole thread. :wink:

- *sigh* as if I had any credibility with creationists in the first place. :doh:

[Bald Ape]

RightIdea,

You sure are enjoying the moment, aren't you? Unfortunately, you were so quick to point out the mistakes of others, you kind of betrayed your own ignorance of the subject at hand. A 1 gram sample of 5,000-year-old carbon will contain about 50 trillion C-14 atoms. A 50,000 year old sample will contain about 200 billion C-14 atoms. And a 100,000 year old sample will contain about 400,000 C-14 atoms. So your assertion that "Carbon 14 cannot possibly continue to exist longer than 50,000 years. Period. " is patently false (and, presumably, your understanding of exponential decay is wanting).

Have a nice day! :wink:

[Sauron]

04-08-2003 @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59682#post59682)
Pilgrim:


The samples were sent to two labs in California, I assure you they were not highschool. I'll email Dr. Oliver ( You may know of him he was one of the scientists at Mt. St Helen when it blew) and ask which labs he used. I want to say UCD since that is where his PhD is from but I think they were independent labs not University ones.

Actually, "Dr. Rick Oliver" is a herpetologist. And, contrary to your claim, his resume says nothing about being at St Helens when it blew.

What exactly were you hoping that a herpetologist could tell you, about a volcanic eruption?

[Sauron]

Yesterday @ 08:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62960#post62960)
RightIdea:


[quote]
Which makes it very interesting that we've found unfossilized dinosaur remains with carbon 14.


Who made such claims?


Interesting that old earthers claim all petroleum is from prehistoric plant material, and yet there's never been a sample of petroleum from anywhere in the world that didn't test positive for carbon 14.


Source?

[Vorkosigan]

delete

[tgamble]

04-11-2003 @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62960#post62960)
RightIdea:
Which makes it very interesting that we've found unfossilized dinosaur remains with carbon 14.

Is it to much to hope that you'd actually provide evidence for this claim?

[Duvenoy]

Here's a yarn from AiG concerning unfossilized dino bones:

"The Liscomb Bone Bed has probably thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones — some of them have the ligaments still attached. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure the importance of this. To believe that it is 65 million years or more since these dinosaurs lived on earth — that takes a lot of faith. It doesn’t take near as much faith to believe that they might have been frozen for a couple of thousand years at most. It places dinosaurs well within the time of man, so I think that’s exciting. That’s what we went there for — to find the frozen dinosaur bones and the Lord was very, very gracious to us. We brought back (under an official permit) over two hundred pounds of bones. It was a neat team and we all give God the glory."


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp

Some years ago, I read something similiar at the ICR site. I sent them an e-mail asking where I and my good friend, Jack Horner might view these wonders. I didn't get an answer, which is ok. I've never met the esteemed Mr. Horner, anyway. If they must spout rubbish, why should I not? :teeth:

For more, go to AiG and search for' Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones. Have fun!

doov

[Duvenoy]

A little more:

"Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous -- to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

Oddly enough, this site won’t let me take out a quote. It too, has to do with red blood cells in unfossilized bones.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/old/old.htm

And, on a somewhat more sober note:

"Last week, in a blaze of publicity, the US National Science Foundation announced that Mary Schweitzer, a student from Montana State University, had found 'spherical structures that have the appearance of red blood cells' in the marrow of a T. rex femur unearthed in Montana. Preliminary analyses suggest that the structures contain proteins and nucleic acids, said the NSF. Jack Horner, a palaeontologist at Montana, is trying to extract DNA from the cells, said the foundation. But the researchers were rather more circumspect. 'We have no findings to report,' says "

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/cooldna.jsp

When it was first announced, there was a great to-do over all this, even though there were no actual blood cells present, merely traces. But to hear some of the more rabid creationists tell it, the blood was all but flowing. I’ve not really been keeping track of this -- it proves nothing other than that we can detect minute traces of blood in ancient fossils. As our scientific methods become more sophisticated, I’ve no doubt that many more remarkable discoveries will be produced.

doov

[Dr.GH]

Carl Wieland, writing for AiG started the fantasy that there had been red blood cells found in the bone of a T. rex. His source was a short article in Earth magazine by Schweitzer and Staedter (1997). A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic peptides, and organometalics in ancient materials is that this “proves” that the Earth is young. Their argument reduces to nothing other than they don’t think that organic molecules can last a long while.

I was just exchanging email today with the former editor of Earth magazine, Josh Fischman, who confirmed that the magazine article was a non-peer reviewed, popular press article that they tied into the hit movie “Jurassic Park” released that same year. Wieland (1977) ignored the scientific publications in the same year by Schweitzer et al (1997a, 1997b) just as he ignored Schweitzer and Horner (1999) in his 1999, “ Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really?”. He ignored all the scientific publications that Schweitzer was involved in, as well as Jack Horner’s personal comunication that there were NO RED BLOOD CELLS found in dinosaur bones when he published Weiland (2002). He will no doubt continue to ignor the scientific literature on this topic (like he does generally) because the truth would detract from his young earth cant.

I have spent some time collecting, and carefully reading the relevent papers, and I have spoken with, or corresponded with the scientifc principals (Schnieder and Horner) as well as Fischman and others. Maybe I'll post my AiG debunking here for critical review. It could be fun. I intend to also address the nonsence in the book In Six Days about osteocalcin in the chapter by Baumgardner. What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge amoung YEC literalists, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person (or even anonymous Internet poseurs claiming credentials they can not substantiate) these misrepresentations, and outright frauds are widely disseminated.

M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter,
1997 'The Real Jurassic Park', Earth , June pp. 55-57.

Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst
V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
1997a “Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June

Schweitzer, M.H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T.G., Horner, J.H., Starkey, J.R.,
1997b 'Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of _Tyrannosaurus rex_' Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Volume 17, No. 2, June 19.

Schweitzer, Mary Higby, John R. Horner
1999 “Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex” Annales de Paléontologie Volume 85, Issue 3, July-September , pg.179-192.

Wieland, Carl
1997 “Sensational dinosaur blood report” Creation Ex Nihilo 19(4):42–43 September–November

Wieland, Carl
1999 “ Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really?” Creation 21(1):54-55, December 1998-February 1999

Wieland, Carl
2002 “Evolutionist questions AiG report — Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils? First Posted 25 March, AiG webpage.

[TheFiveSolas]

Dr.GH wrote:

I intend to also address the nonsence (sic) in the book In Six Days about osteocalcin in the chapter by Baumgardner. What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge amoung (sic) YEC literalists, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person...


For the record here are Dr. Baumgardner's qualifications:


John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics


Education:

B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983


Organizations:

American Geophysical Union
Mineralogical Society of America

Professional Experience:

Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico (1984 - Present).

Member of Technical Staff and Consultant - Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, Laser Department (1978-1979, 1981-1984).

Graduate Research Assistant - University of California, Los Angeles, Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences (1979-1983).

Consultant - R & D Associates (1980-1981).

Project Officer - U. S. Air Force, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Laser Division, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (1971-1975).

Current Research Interests:

Three-dimensional numerical simulation of planetary mantle dynamics, global climate change, and nonlinear rheological behavior.

Development of efficient hydrodynamics methods, suitable for 3-D, both explicit and implicit, for massively parallel supercomputers.

Publications:

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection," Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., in press, 2000.

H. R. Wenk, J. R. Baumgardner, C. N. Tome, and R. Lebensohn, "A deformation model to explain anisotropy of the inner core," J. Geophys. Res., in press, 2000.

M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection and plate motion history: Toward general circulation models," History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions, AGU Monograph Series, 1999.

J. R. Baumgardner and W.-S. Yang, "Earthlike mantle convection from relatively simple rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F26, 1999.

M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The effectiveness of finite yield stress in obtaining platelike surface velocities," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F962, 1999.

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Feasibility of the lava lamp model for the Earth's mantle," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F941, 1999.

D. R. Stegman, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "A parallel implementation of Lagrangian tracers in TERRA," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F950, 1999.

C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Impacts and the thermal evolution of Mars," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F618, 1999.

John R. Baumgardner, Mark A. Richards, Woo-Sun Yang, and Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "3-D Spherical Models of Plate Motion With Laterally Varying Rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 79, (1998 Fall Meeting Supplement), F911, 1998.

H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. R. Baumgardner, S. P. Grand, and B. A. Romanowicz, "Time scales and heterogeneity structure in geodynamic earth models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "A sensitivity study of 3-D spherical mantle convection at 108 Rayleigh number: effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change," J. Geophys. Res., 102, B6, 11991-12007, 1997.

John R. Baumgardner and Woo-Sun Yang, "A finite element multigrid formulation for variable viscosity in 3-D spherical geometry," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 77, (Fall Meeting Supplement), F750, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge and John R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection modeling on parallel virtual machines," Computers in Physics, 9, 207-215, 1995. J. R. Baumgardner, "Thermal runaway in the mantle" (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 687, 1994.

John R. Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," in Flow and Creep in the Solar System: Observations, Modeling, and Theory, D. B. Stone and S. K. Runcorn, eds., NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 391, 207-224, 1993.

John Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 73, 1992 Fall Meeting Abstract Volume, 576-577, 1992.

M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, J. Baumgardner, M. G. Kivelson, and D. A. Paige, "Io's volcanic and sublimation atmospheres," Icarus, 93, 63-81, 1991.

John R. Baumgardner, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The Physics of the Planets, S. K. Runcorn, ed., John Wiley and Sons, 199-231, 1988.

J. Baumgardner, M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, and M. G. Kivelson, "Two classes of volcanic eruptions and their corresponding atmospheres on Io," Bull. Am. Astr. Assoc., 19(3), 856, 1987.

John R. Baumgardner, "Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the earth's mantle," J. Stat. Phys., 39, 501-511, 1985.

John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Icosahedral discretization of the two-sphere," SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 22, 1107-1115, 1985.

Peter Bird and John Baumgardner, "Fault friction, regional stress, and crust-mantle coupling in southern California from finite element models," J. Geophys. Res., 89, No. B3, 1932-1944, 1984.

John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Three-dimensional treatment of mantle convection," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 63, 1105, 1982.



Dr.GH, I'd hardly consider such extensive experience, publishing, etc. to be "vague" credentials. I have to wonder why you would make comments like the one above in light of the facts.

Oh, by the way, I have the book, In Six days, I just skimmed the chapter in question and find no mention of osteocalcin by Dr. Baumgardner. What page are you looking at?

[Dr.GH]

Page 236, ref 17.

[GrayPilgrim]

04-13-2003 @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64816#post64816)
Sauron:



Actually, &quot;Dr. Rick Oliver&quot; is a herpetologist. And, contrary to your claim, his resume says nothing about being at St Helens when it blew.

What exactly were you hoping that a herpetologist could tell you, about a volcanic eruption?

His crendetials were already discussed. As Pilgrim had him for a class and I trust Pilgrim I would say he was there unil you can show me otherwise. BTW I have no clue who he is so I don't have a vested interest eithrr way, but like I said if you would read otehr people's posts prior topsoting it might save time on your part and those who then read it, just a thought.

GP

[TheFiveSolas]

Dr.GH,
Thanks. I'll await your critique.

[Socrates]

Dr G.H. splutters:What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge amoung YEC literalists, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person (or even anonymous Internet poseurs claiming credentials they can not substantiate) these misrepresentations, and outright frauds are widely disseminated.What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge and even more pathetic pontificating on the Bible by most evolutionists, and an entrenched censorship of the slightest criticism any challenge to the materialistic paradigm, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person (or even Internet poseurs with social science doctorates) these misrepresentations, and outright frauds are widely disseminated, e.g. faked embryo pix, staged peppered moth pix, Miller-Urey experiments treated as proof htat life can come from non-living chemicals, National Geographic's trumpeting of the Archaeoraptor hoax as "proof" of dino-to-bird evolution ...

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape wrote:

A 1 gram sample of 5,000-year-old carbon will contain about 50 trillion C-14 atoms.


Don't you mean a 1 gram sample of 5,000 yr/old carbon-14 will contain about 50 trillion C-14 atoms? If so, the problem with your criticism is that there nowhere exists a pure sample of JUST carbon-14 in a given sample.

Theoretically, the amount of c-14 in any sample would, using current equipment, be undetectible after 50-60k years.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68857#post68857)
Socrates:

Dr G.H. splutters:What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge amoung YEC literalists, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person (or even anonymous Internet poseurs claiming credentials they can not substantiate) these misrepresentations, and outright frauds are widely disseminated.What is so very sad is that because there is such poor scientific knowledge and even more pathetic pontificating on the Bible by most evolutionists, and an entrenched censorship of the slightest criticism any challenge to the materialistic paradigm, they are victim to any vaguely qualified person (or even Internet poseurs with social science doctorates) these misrepresentations, and outright frauds are widely disseminated, e.g. faked embryo pix, staged peppered moth pix, Miller-Urey experiments treated as proof htat life can come from non-living chemicals, National Geographic's trumpeting of the Archaeoraptor hoax as &quot;proof&quot; of dino-to-bird evolution ...

As recently as 1988, Duane Gish was insisting that the 2LoT disproves evolution (See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/index.shtml specifically here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html (search for 'second')). Now, after doing such, why should I take anything he says seriously ever again?

[geochron]

Today @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68868#post68868)
TheFiveSolas:

Bald Ape wrote:


Don't you mean a 1 gram sample of 5,000 yr/old carbon-14 will contain about 50 trillion C-14 atoms? If so, the problem with your criticism is that there nowhere exists a pure sample of JUST carbon-14 in a given sample.

Theoretically, the amount of c-14 in any sample would, using current equipment, be undetectible after 50-60k years.

1 gram of carbon is ~1/12 of a mole and a mole is 6x10^23 atoms.

Modern 14C/12C = 1.3 x 10^-12

1 gram of modern carbon has 1/12 * 6*1.3 *10^23 * 10^-12 = 10^11 atoms of 14C (within a factor of 2).

5000 years is about one half life, so there are about half this many atoms, 5*10^10 atoms. So my answer is 50 billion but I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet so could be all mixed up.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68833#post68833)
GrayPilgrim:



His crendetials were already discussed. As Pilgrim had him for a class and I trust Pilgrim I would say he was there unil you can show me otherwise. BTW I have no clue who he is so I don't have a vested interest eithrr way, but like I said if you would read otehr people's posts prior topsoting it might save time on your part and those who then read it, just a thought.

GP


Additionally we never were discussing volcanic issus in depth. We were talking about some wood samples. I mentioned the other because I thought maybe some had heard of him.

And I never had him in a class. We worked together in California and he is a personal friend. We used to meet once a week on a mentor/mentoree basis.

I'm sure he'd get po'd if he knew I was throwing his name around so I'll just stop now.

Pilgrim

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 04:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69162#post69162)
geochron:



1 gram of carbon is ~1/12 of a mole and a mole is 6x10^23 atoms.

Modern 14C/12C = 1.3 x 10^-12

1 gram of modern carbon has 1/12 * 6*1.3 *10^23 * 10^-12 = 10^11 atoms of 14C (within a factor of 2).

5000 years is about one half life, so there are about half this many atoms, 5*10^10 atoms. So my answer is 50 billion but I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet so could be all mixed up.

Yeah, what geochron wrote - I was in a rush when counting the zeroes on my calculator, e.g., thousands, millions...uh, trillions...(doh!!). Next time I'll just use scientific notation. But I did start with a carbon sample representing the modern ratio of C-12/C-14, not pure C-14 as you suspected...

[Socrates]

DrG.H.:Carl Wieland, writing for AiG started the fantasy that there had been red blood cells found in the bone of a T. rex. No, if anyone started a fantasy, it was the magazine Earth!
His source was a short article in Earth magazine by Schweitzer and Staedter (1997). That's right, so why not abuse THEM for "drivel"? A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic peptides, and organometalics in ancient materials is that this “proves” that the Earth is young. Their argument reduces to nothing other than they don’t think that organic molecules can last a long while. Because of OBSERVED rates of decomposition.
I was just exchanging email today with the former editor of Earth magazine, Josh Fischman, who confirmed that the magazine article was a non-peer reviewed, popular press article that they tied into the hit movie “Jurassic Park” released that same year. So what -- it was by the lead researcher herself!! So take it up with them -- don't blame Dr Wieland because he CORRECTLY represented what Dr Schweitzer said in her article, even if she decides elsewhere that she believes something else:

‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’2 Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’

hurd:Maybe I'll post my AiG debunking here for critical review. It could be fun.Or send it to AiG -- but since Dr Wieland has made it clear that he won't dialogue with the Australian Skeptics unless they repudiate their disgustingly unethical behavior, best not to mention anything about that No-AiG gutter site Hurd is so fond of (hardly surprising really).

[Sauron]

04-15-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68833#post68833)
GrayPilgrim:



His crendetials were already discussed.

Yep. That's why I asked my question. And it's still relevant. And still un-answered:

What do you think a herpetologist could tell you, about volcanic activity?

One poster claimed that Oliver had a PhD in evolutionary biology; just another fact not supported by his resume.


As Pilgrim had him for a class and I trust Pilgrim I would say he was there unil you can show me otherwise.


Who you trust is totally irrelevant to the question. There is no evidence in the resume, of Oliver being there at St Helens at the eruption.

Pilgrim cannot testify whether or not Oliver was there at St Helens either. Pilgrim can only testify, at most, to what Oliver said in class. However, given the fact that "creationist" and "inflated claims" go hand-in-hand, I'm unwilling to take second hand testimony of uncorroborated claims.


BTW I have no clue who he is so I don't have a vested interest eithrr way, but like I said if you would read otehr people's posts prior topsoting it might save time on your part and those who then read it, just a thought.


Your comment is pointless, since I did read other people's posts.
None of them answered my question. Would you like to do so now, perhaps?

Why do you think a snake specialist would be qualified to discuss vulcanism and geology?

[Pilgrim]

Your comment is pointless becaue the issue of volcamoes is not an issue anyone has raised? What an amazing straw man you have raised here.

[Dr.GH]

Yesterday @ 10:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72794#post72794)
Socrates:

DrG.H.:Carl Wieland, writing for AiG started the fantasy that there had been red blood cells found in the bone of a T. rex. No, if anyone started a fantasy, it was the magazine Earth!
His source was a short article in Earth magazine by Schweitzer and Staedter (1997). That's right, so why not abuse THEM for &quot;drivel&quot;? A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic peptides, and organometalics in ancient materials is that this “proves” that the Earth is young. Their argument reduces to nothing other than they don’t think that organic molecules can last a long while. Because of OBSERVED rates of decomposition.
[/list]

Re: fantasy, and Earth magazine:

Wieland did not accurately represent the Earth article by Schweitzer and Staedter. He latched onto a few quotes out of their article, and protrayed them as thought they were conclusions of a scientific analysis presented in a scientific venue. Wieand ignored several qualifications even in the Earth article, major simultanious scientific publications by Schweitzer (and others), and continues his denial of facts, even when they are personally presented to him.

That said, I will need to point out that because Schweitzer is a Christian, she was unprepared for the abuse of her work in the YEC press (M.S. personal communication to G.H.) I will be chastising both Schweitzer and Earth magazine.

I would be very interested in socrates' sources for his statement about "observed rates of decomposition." Can you provide any references to nonYEC, scientific publications?

[Sauron]

Today @ 07:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73112#post73112)
Pilgrim:

Your comment is pointless becaue the issue of volcamoes is not an issue anyone has raised?

What an amazing straw man you have raised here.

On the contrary, Pilgrim. You've screwed up several times. I'm merely pointing it out.

First, you claimed Oliver had a PhD in evolutionary biology. But you've presented no such evidence. Rufus and I both challenged you on that.

Second, it was you who brought up the fact that Oliver claimed to be at St Helens when it blew. That's another unsubstantiated claim.

Thirdly, It was you, Pilgrim, who brought up the claim of Oliver being there. And you did that, in the context of an ongoing discussion about radiocarbon dating.

So who raised the strawman here, Pilgrim? I have asking what a herpetologist could tell you, about vulcanism. That is not a strawman. You're the one who mentioned Oliver at St Helens; I'm merely forcing you to show us why a herpetologist's opinion should matter in this discussion.

Care to try again?

[Pilgrim]

No offense but you are being an idiot. I never raised the issue in regards to radio carbon dating. It was a parenthetical statement towards identifying the man. If you had bothered to read the whole thing without this antagonistic eye you would have seen that. You would have also seen that I never had a class with the man. Dr. Oliver who is a friend of mine related the story to me. I have no reason to doubt his word.

I apologise if my identification of his PhD was wrong. It was my understanding that his PhD was in Evolutionary Biology and that he obtained the PhD at UCD.

Of course all of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather it seems like you are simply making noise to make noise.

[Sauron]

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73657#post73657)
Pilgrim:

No offense but you are being an idiot. I never raised the issue in regards to radio carbon dating. It was a parenthetical statement towards identifying the man. If you had bothered to read the whole thing without this antagonistic eye you would have seen that.


I did read the whole thing. There was no such indication. If you had inserted the comment about Oliver as parenthetical, then you've had numerous opportunities to say so, long before now. Why didn't you?

Answer: because it was not parenthetical. Having realized that Oliver is not involved in Evolutionary Biology, and that herpetologists aren't really good sources for geology or radiocarbon dating, you now indicate that your comment was only "parenthetical."

Of course.
:ahem:



Of course all of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather it seems like you are simply making noise to make noise.

On the contrary. The text of your comments indicated that there was some connection between Oliver, St Helens, and radiocarbon dating. I merely forced the issue to the table, and asked you to identify that connection.

Obviously, you can't draw one.

[Pilgrim]

Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=59682#post59682) is the link to the post in question. And here is the quote itself...

The samples were sent to two labs in California, I assure you they were not highschool. I'll email Dr. Oliver ( You may know of him he was one of the scientists at Mt. St Helen when it blew) and ask which labs he used. I want to say UCD since that is where his PhD is from but I think they were independent labs not University ones.

You can cleary see that the comment is parenthetical. Thus the parentheses. Does that make it any clearer for you?

BY the way, out of curiosity, what are peoples qualifications here on the thread? I mean, who here is an expert by education and degree on the topic at hand?

[Socrates]

Dr G.H.:Wieland did not accurately represent the Earth article by Schweitzer and Staedter. He latched onto a few quotes out of their article, and protrayed them as thought they were conclusions of a scientific analysis presented in a scientific venue.Oh, you mean like the first-hand comments by the primary researchers? Wieand ignored several qualifications even in the Earth article, major simultanious scientific publications by Schweitzer (and others), and continues his denial of facts, even when they are personally presented to him.Oh yeah, right. And I've explained that there's no reason for anyone to take seriously the criticisms of anyone associated with the Australian Skeptics because of their known dishonesty. And if your own criticisms were couched in the usual invective (e.g. throwing in allegations of racism), it wouldn't be unreasonable for a busy man to write them off without taking them seriously. Dr Wieland also convincingly rebutted a major criticism of his article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp .That said, I will need to point out that because Schweitzer is a Christian, It's worth pointing out that the word "Christian" is such debased currency these days, with known deniers of the Resurrection, abortionists, perjurers, adulterers, etc. calling themselves that. I'm not saying that Dr Schweitzer is in this category, but that I won't just take the word "Christian" at face value without a definition of what that means.... she was unprepared for the abuse of her work in the YEC press (M.S. personal communication to G.H.)Begging the question of whether it was abused. She said what she said! I will be chastising both Schweitzer and Earth magazine.That's even-handed anyway. I would be very interested in socrates' sources for his statement about "observed rates of decomposition." Can you provide any references to nonYEC, scientific publications?It's a well-known fact that condensation polymers are thermodynamically unstable when there is water around, and the kinetics are against them too. Of course, there are plenty of YEC scientific publications around. Dr Schweitzer herself realizes the problem, for she said:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”

[QED]

Although it's worth pointing out that the word "Christian" is such debased currency these days, with known deniers of the Resurrection, [sinners], [people who don't believe the exact things I do] etc. calling themselves that.

Doesn't matter much. Christians of any type should share some general experiential and philosphical background:

1) willingness to accept faith-based propositions
2) no motivation to accept evolution on the basis of philosophical materialism, or other philosophically naturalistic view-points
3) (in context of this post), expectations (however credulous) of decent conduct from fellow Christians with whom they may disagree on some point - until they have had contact with enough bad eggs to realize that this only the norm, not a universal aspect of Christian behavior.

[Dr.GH]

I would be very interested in socrates' sources for his statement about "observed rates of decomposition." Can you provide any references to nonYEC, scientific publications?

Not that I really had thought that you knew this literature, but, I did think that you would at least pull a medline search or something equivelent. Instead, you merely quote from Wieland (without proper attribution at that).