radiometric dating

[toLiJC]

let's not forget that there is a high(spiritual) power above the particles and the visible world in general which not only created the matter but even could change(age) it quite directly

Blessings

 

[crjmurray]

let's not forget that there is a high(spiritual) power above the particles and the visible world in general which not only created the matter but even could change(age) it quite directly

Blessings

Is there?

 

[toLiJC]

Is there?

are there children without having been conceived by parents?!

 

[RickG]

I am qualified to speak of my Friend the creator. I am qualified to expose the basis of scientific claims regarding origins as bat dung.

You are not qualified to say Peter was a liar or wrong or etc, and you are not qualified to prove the claimed state nature science relies on.

I'm not talking about the bible. I'm talking specifically about SCIENCE, something you keep admonishing and know nothing about. NOTHING!

 

[crjmurray]

are there children without having been conceived by parents?!

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[dad]

I'm not talking about the bible. I'm talking specifically about SCIENCE, something you keep admonishing and know nothing about. NOTHING!

I actually know plenty about science. On issues of creation it descends into religious stupor. Don't confuse disrecting so called science lies against God's word for knowing nothing about science. all I focus on and am interested in about science is what basis it dares to defy God's word on. It is in those issues that I walk all over science and laugh.

 

[crjmurray]

I actually know plenty about science. On issues of creation it descends into religious stupor. Don't confuse disrecting so called science lies against God's word for knowing nothing about science. all I focus on and am interested in about science is what basis it dares to defy God's word on. It is in those issues that I walk all over science and laugh.

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="crjmurray, post: 67509194, member: 368851]---[/QUOTE]

 

[toLiJC]

What does that have to do with anything?

there is no anything coming from nothing, or how is it possible that something come from nothing?!

Blessings

 

[crjmurray]

there is no anything coming from nothing, or how is it possible that something come from nothing?!

Blessings

OK then.

 

[Aggie]

Perhaps, but it looks like the title of their talk was very misleading. From your screen capture the title was on C13 amounts. C13 can be used as a temperature indicator since CO2 with C13 will react very slightly differently than CO2 with C12 in it. And that difference will be driven by temperature if I remember correctly. I am unaware of any work where C13 is used as part of C14 dating.

I know this thread is slightly stale, but I found a little more information about why the lecture was removed. There's a web page here that gives a more detailed description of this sequence of events.

Based on the letter they received that's quoted there, it's fairly clear why their data was rejected, and why they were subsequently disallowed from submitting any more samples to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies. We probably shouldn't claim anymore that data is never discarded for this reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know this thread is slightly stale, but I found a little more information about why the lecture was removed. There's a web page here that gives a more detailed description of this sequence of events.

Based on the letter they received that's quoted there, it's fairly clear why their data was rejected, and why they were subsequently disallowed from submitting any more samples to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies. We probably shouldn't claim anymore that data is never discarded for this reason.

The problem is that none of their work is peer reviewed. The reason that peer review is the gold standard of science is that it explains exactly how they did their tests so others can see possible errors and repeat the experiment. Peer review allows experts in the field to check the work in question and see if the work was valid. Here is an article that covers C14 dating by creationists:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

 

[Aggie]

The problem is that none of their work is peer reviewed. The reason that peer review is the gold standard of science is that it explains exactly how they did their tests so others can see possible errors and repeat the experiment. Peer review allows experts in the field to check the work in question and see if the work was valid. Here is an article that covers C14 dating by creationists:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm not saying their methodology wasn't flawed, or that mainstream researchers haven't pointed out flaws in similar work. But when you look at the letters they received, that apparently wasn't the reason their results were rejected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm not saying their methodology wasn't flawed, or that mainstream researchers haven't pointed out flaws in similar work. But when you look at the letters they received, that apparently wasn't the reason their results were rejected.

Do you have links from the event that tell you why their results were rejected? From what I saw their lecture did not math the submitted title. That is a valid reason for kicking someone out. You do realize that C13 has nothing to do with carbon dating, don't you?

 

[Aggie]

I included the link two posts ago: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

I included the link two posts ago: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

It should have been obvious that I was requesting something from a reliable source.

 

[Aggie]

It should have been obvious that I was requesting something from a reliable source.

The people running the conference didn't give any public explanation for why they removed the presentation. If you're looking for an explanation they offered in some sort of official venue, I think it's pretty clear that doesn't exist. But the letter they eventually sent to the researchers explaining their decision is scanned and uploaded at that site. I'm not sure why the site's reliability matters for something like that, unless you're intending to argue that the scanned letter was faked in Photoshop.

 

[Loudmouth]

I included the link two posts ago: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

The correct response to the rejection is to include more material in the next version of the paper showing how it isn't error, and then resubmit. I have yet to see a paper that was published without any requests for revisions. I have yet to see a scientist give up after getting one rejection letter.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The correct response to the rejection is to include more material in the next version of the paper showing how it isn't error, and then resubmit. I have yet to see a paper that was published without any requests for revisions. I have yet to see a scientist give up after getting one rejection letter.

To be completely fair, the publication that was rejected was a conference abstract. You generally don't get to make revisions or re-submit an abstract if it gets rejected, and getting rejected from a conference in the first place is really rare as long as you follow the submission guidelines. I've seen some pretty nutso posters at conferences.

So yeah, this is definitely an instance of censorship. I can understand why they did it - allowing them into the conference would lend legitimacy to creationism, and given the current socio-political climate, it could potentially set back science education in the US significantly - but I don't necessarily agree that it should have been done. They have data that appears to be reasonably precise and legitimately obtained (unlike other examples of creationist radiometric dating). The real question is what they were actually dating.

 

[Loudmouth]

To be completely fair, the publication that was rejected was a conference abstract. You generally don't get to make revisions or re-submit an abstract if it gets rejected, and getting rejected from a conference in the first place is really rare as long as you follow the submission guidelines. I've seen some pretty nutso posters at conferences.

You can always submit to a different conference, or do a full write-up and submit to a journal.

You are correct that the bar is set very low for conferences. The fact that this abstract failed to meet that low bar says a lot.