Circular Reasoning

[Strathos]

And that has what to do with circular reasoning with respect to index fossils?

Just pointing out that if someone is going to argue that the Ancient Egyptians regularly met and interacted with giants because they created artistic depictions of them, the same would have to be said about people with animal heads.

 

[RickG]

Just pointing out that if someone is going to argue that the Ancient Egyptians regularly met and interacted with giants because they created artistic depictions of them, the same would have to be said about people with animal heads.

I see, thank you.

 

[whois]

Once again, your radiometric dating source is one in which the author is trying to show that radiometric dating is not reliable.

the following doesn't TRY to show it, it actually DOES.
arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Honesty, I don't know how I can present your sources problem any clearer.

nor do i.

 

[RickG]

the following doesn't TRY to show it, it actually DOES.
arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Please explain how cosmogenic nublide oscillation has anything to do with circular reasoning with respect to index fossils? Your link certainly does not, nor does it put any radiometric dating method into question in the slightest.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please explain how cosmogenic nublide oscillation has anything to do with circular reasoning with respect to index fossils? Your link certainly does not, nor does it put any radiometric dating method into question in the slightest.

Sure it does. If the amount of C14 varies according to solar activity - then unless you know what the sun was doing at all times in the past - your basis of C14 content is invalid.

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known – while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well..."


"...Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out."

Cosmic RaysHit Space Age High - NASA Science

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," ..."

"Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age."

Although we can discount any theory which relies on cosmic rays anyways, since the data shows mainstream's cosmic ray theory is evidently wrong:

Voyager 1 Discovers Bizarre and Baffling Region at Edge of Solar System | WIRED

"So what’s the problem? Well, if the solar wind was completely gone, galactic cosmic rays should be streaming in from all directions. Instead, Voyager found them coming preferentially from one direction"

As a matter of fact - all their models were incorrect:

Heliosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So we will ignore C14 varies according to solar activity - varies according to cosmic ray influxes - which models were all wrong - and ignore decay rates change with energy content - all so we can keep preaching the same old falsified dogma we have always preached?

I fail to see anything scientific in that stance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let alone we haven't even begun to discuss the effects of magnetic field strength and field reversals.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

 

[RickG]

Sure it does. If the amount of C14 varies according to solar activity - then unless you know what the sun was doing at all times in the past - your basis of C14 content is invalid.

First the link provided by whois says nothing about 14C; second, as I stated to whois, what he presented was a paper on cosmogenic oscillations. Those are not decay rate changes nor do they affect any radiometric dating method. As well, the links you present does not support your claim. A cosmic ray flux of 200-300% does not constitute a decay rate increase (flux) by that much, not in the least.

And yes, the production rate of atmospheric 14C has varied over time due to cosmogenic variation. Those variations are well known and measured in speleothems and dendrochronology. That is how we know they varied and by how much and why a calibration curve is used based on that physical evidence and knowledge.

Your argument is completely invalid. Now, do you care to actually get back on topic and address the OP concerning circular reasoning with respect to index fossils?

 

[RickG]

Let alone we haven't even begun to discuss the effects of magnetic field strength and field reversals.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

Completly off topic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Completly off topic.

Certainly NOT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7878140-27/#post67491872

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates,"

So you choose to ignore the science????

 

[lasthero]

Certainly NOT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7878140-27/#post67491872

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates,"

So you choose to ignore the science????

I'm pretty sure he's already seen that post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First the link provided by whois says nothing about 14C; second, as I stated to whois, what he presented was a paper on cosmogenic oscillations. Those are not decay rate changes nor do they affect any radiometric dating method. As well, the links you present does not support your claim. A cosmic ray flux of 200-300% does not constitute a decay rate increase (flux) by that much, not in the least.

And yes, the production rate of atmospheric 14C has varied over time due to cosmogenic variation. Those variations are well known and measured in speleothems and dendrochronology. That is how we know they varied and by how much and why a calibration curve is used based on that physical evidence and knowledge.

Your argument is completely invalid. Now, do you care to actually get back on topic and address the OP concerning circular reasoning with respect to index fossils?

Yep, ignoring the science as usual. Couldn't even get models to match predictions, yet you are going to assure me that a 200 to 300% increase wouldn't matter at all. Sounds like ignoring science again.

What index fossils? Fossils based upon the age of rocks they are not even found in???? Rocks who's dating is ignored by an increase of 200-300% yet calculated by today's average????

I'm not sure you understand fossil dating at all or how it's done.

So which index layer does this fossil belong to????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm pretty sure he's already seen that post.

And like you choose to ignore the defining words "significant changes", because you don't want to have to consider it. Instead like him claiming it's insignificant when your own scientists say the exact opposite.

Something we see over and over from those claiming to follow science.

 

[RickG]

,

Certainly NOT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7878140-27/#post67491872

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates,"

What part of variations in production rates are well known and quantified and corrected with a calibration scale based on that information do you not understand?

And what part of 14C production rate in the atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with the decay rate of 14C, any cosmogenic nuclide or any radionuclide for that matter, do you not understand?

So you choose to ignore the science????

No, I'm not ignoring the science. I actually have an academic background in the area along with more than 25 years experience as a research chemist measuring isotope concentrations.

Let me ask you this, would you care to engage me in a one-on-one formal debate on this subject you keep presenting which is off topic for this thread? Hmmmmm?

 

[lasthero]

And like you choose to ignore the defining words "significant changes", because you don't want to have to consider it. Instead like him claiming it's insignificant when your own scientists say the exact opposite.

Something we see over and over from those claiming to follow science.

You'll just take any excuse to get on your soapbox, won't you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

,

What part of variations in production rates are well known and quantified and corrected with a calibration scale based on that information do you not understand?

And what part of 14C production rate in the atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with the decay rate of 14C, any cosmogenic nuclide or any radionuclide for that matter, do you not understand?



No, I'm not ignoring the science. I actually have an academic background in the area along with more than 25 years experience as a research chemist measuring isotope concentrations.

Let me ask you this, would you care to engage me in a one-on-one formal debate on this subject you keep presenting which is off topic for this thread? Hmmmmm?

Except they are not known - nor did they match any model at all.

"attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well...."

"... there is evidence for an unusual 10-fold increase of the production rate in AD 774–775..."


"...Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years old."

So your claims of accuracy for millions and billions of years is what? Wishful thinking????

Perhaps this would go along with fossil bones of dinosaurs dated to from 45,000 to 50,000 years and soft tissue being found?

But we'll ignore that too in favor of pure belief, right?

 

[RickG]

And like you choose to ignore the defining words "significant changes", because you don't want to have to consider it. Instead like him claiming it's insignificant when your own scientists say the exact opposite.

Something we see over and over from those claiming to follow science.

Your ignorance on the off topic subject you continue to expound upon is more than obvious. Your sources do not support what you are claiming they do in the slightest.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You'll just take any excuse to get on your soapbox, won't you?

And you'll use anything to ignore the actual science, won't you? And ad hominen attack tactics are known for what they are - not having any valid science in which to argue with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The only thing you've done in any post actually.

 

[whois]

First the link provided by whois says nothing about 14C; second, as I stated to whois, what he presented was a paper on cosmogenic oscillations. Those are not decay rate changes nor do they affect any radiometric dating method.

huh?
from the abstract:
Recently, Jenkins, et al. have reported the detection of correlations between fluctuations in nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance, which suggest that nuclear decay rates can be affected by solar activity.

nuclear decay is what radiometric dating depends on.
the above paper says this is not constant.

 

[RickG]

Except they are not known - nor did they match any model at all.

The reason we know about those past 14C production rates is because we can not only measure them but we can date them through non-radiometric means.

"attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well...."

I have no models you are talking about other than just making things up and pulling them out of thin air. If you cannot present said models with an explanation on how they support your claims, then your claims are baseless.

"... there is evidence for an unusual 10-fold increase of the production rate in AD 774–775..."

For the last time, the production rate of atmospheric 14C has absolutely nothing to do with its decay rate. And again, the fact that a 10-fold increase in that production rate is known, it is easily accounted for.

"...Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years old."

Or any material/organism that received a continuous absorption of atmospheric 14C during its life span. 14C dating can exceed 60,000 years, however the limiting factor there is that the calibration scale only goes to there.

So your claims of accuracy for millions and billions of years is what? Wishful thinking????

Wow! You are all over the place. Millions and billions of years is out of the range of radiocarbon dating.

Perhaps this would go along with fossil bones of dinosaurs dated to from 45,000 to 50,000 years and soft tissue being found?

Nope, those are hoaxes created by the creationists community. Any 14C found in dinosaur bones are not of cosmogenic origin, rather from the influence of uranium or thorium.

But we'll ignore that too in favor of pure belief, right?

Again, I will glad to engage you in a formal debate on any "specific" topic of any dating method.

 

[lasthero]

And you'll use anything to ignore the actual science, won't you? And ad hominen attack tactics are known for what they are - not having any valid science in which to argue with.

ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing you've done in any post actually.

You should actually read the stuff you link to. I haven't made any ad hominem attack.