-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Carbon Dating
- Thread starter FenderElctrc
- Start date
- Status
No, the book stated 10,000 to 100,000 times the *expected* c-14. (can't use a multiple on a zero number)
That is the question that needs to be answers. Who and how was the 'expected' C14 determined?
Who was expecting it and why?
Until this methodology is released and can be explained (and shown) it's not really a good talking point.
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Notto has a good point laptoppop. The two articles you cited earlier both repeatedly asserted that old objects 'should be C14 dead' and have no C14. While they occasionally mentioned contamination in passing, they continued to repeat that 100,000 year-old objects should have no C14.
If the RATE group does indeed expect some contamination (as does every dating expert in the field) a detailed calculation of the amount of contamination expected would be the most important part of the entire study and would be well worth publishing in peer-reviewed (not just creationist but scientist reviewed now) journals.
Oh, and if they're using decay rates, they would never get to zero. I rather suspect that their 100,000 number is times expected ORIGINAL C14 since that sounds like an extremely low estimate on the contamination (or an extremely high amount of contamination). Of course without peer review of geophysicists I'm not sure how we can be sure that their analysis of contamination sources are remotely valid (I know you're ignoring Kerr, but he did make a good point that not a single reviewer is qualified in the field).
If the RATE group does indeed expect some contamination (as does every dating expert in the field) a detailed calculation of the amount of contamination expected would be the most important part of the entire study and would be well worth publishing in peer-reviewed (not just creationist but scientist reviewed now) journals.
Oh, and if they're using decay rates, they would never get to zero. I rather suspect that their 100,000 number is times expected ORIGINAL C14 since that sounds like an extremely low estimate on the contamination (or an extremely high amount of contamination). Of course without peer review of geophysicists I'm not sure how we can be sure that their analysis of contamination sources are remotely valid (I know you're ignoring Kerr, but he did make a good point that not a single reviewer is qualified in the field).
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, that is not even close to being correct. This kind of dismissive bias is common. I did look at one post by him -- in which he identified the RATE report as talking about "the age of the earth". This shows that it is HIGHLY likely he has not even bothered to look at it. If he had, he would not have characterized the report that way.
There were 6 researchers in the RATE team, all PhDs. Three specialized in physics, the other three in geology or geophysics. Their names are on page 23 of the report, and throughout the report.
The report was reviewed by 15 people, 14 who were PhDs. Their names and associations are listed on page 9 of the report. This was an open review process, so we know who did it. The report specifically states most were YECs, but that several did not agree with particular conclusions or positions in the report.
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I have read almost the entire thing.
The 3 primary authors listed on the front page have not a single published geophysics paper in their lives.
Not a single person of anyone listed in the paper has a single peer reviewed paper on radiodating.
These are very pertinent facts.
We have no basis to believe it was anything but a committee of nodding donkeys who did nothing more than admire the choice of font, table setting parameters and figure presentation.
Off topic: By the way - the thing looks like crap anyway. You'd think at least one of them could use LaTeX. Ooops - maybe not since publishing real papers seems out of their experience.
Most??? You mean all of them. I cannot find a single one of the names listed that does not have a YEC background.
Where are the disagreements? Where are the review reports? As far as we know the only disagreements could have been over whether to pdf or postscript or Word document format for release.
It's not peer review, the "work" was not performed by geophysicists with a radiodating expertise.
It's a con. It exists only to exist - it is not out there for science it is out there for donation appeals.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
