Re: Vid: Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:32:40 -0800 (PST), Boikat
<boikat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Feb 16, 3:05 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:13:38 -0800 (PST), spintronic
<spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:





On Feb 16, 4:48 pm, unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 11, 6:23 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 10 Feb, 23:04, unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:39 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:08 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Well worth watching.

Hovind -- Just another lying scumbag fleecing the masses.

Woooooo.

Down shep.

Iv'e watched all this guys videos.

He is "god of the gaps".

Or at least he knows how to create them.

BTW, he forgot to tell you that "tree ring data & CD calebrate each
other".

Sounds kool.

Until you realise that the tree rings are not linear. They are found
near & around other artefacts.

Mostly they (tree rings) dont fit. (they are random leftovers).

So to fit them together, they carbondate them. Using "probabilistic
calculations".

Unfortunately, they calibrate the Varbon data results with the
patchwork treerings.

It's a fantastic illusion, and you can do it at home.

Get 4 people & 4 chairs.

Place the chairs at right angles forming a large square.

Like this.

1)^          2)   ---- >
   |
   |                    | 3)
                        |
  4)<------------     v

Sit one person on each chair. Facing at right angles.

And then ask them to lean back saying;

("Relax, take it easy, trust me, I'm an evolutionist")

Now pul the chairs from out them one by one.

Amazingly. The impossible feet defies logic and stays afloat.

Examplehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olHTAYUWXXk

Take one out....

Not unlike Carbon Dating.

Ah. Refutation of scientific methodology by argumentum ad party games.
You seem to believe that the universe is whimsical, but that hundreds
of thousands of people over generations and many countries can
maintain a conspiracy.

No, tree rings show strong correlation with weather for that year, and
other trees. The classes of data don't prop each other up; they
corroborate each other.

You sound as though you have a year by year detailed weather report
going back thousands of years.

Let me save you the embaresement. You don't.

Tree rings stand alone; they support each other (other trees and their
rings) and observed weather differences on a yearly basis.

"Other trees"? you find 3 partially decayed fragments of tree remains.
Thousands of years apart.
How do you know the chronological order? You carbondate.
How do you know corbondating is correct? You find tree remains.

I guessed you *missed* the point of the illustration.

What may seem like a valid foundation, can be a semblance of reality,
utilising "props" to keep the dillusion reality.

**************************************************************************

Lets test your hypothesis.

9738 BC. Show me *ALL* the correlating data. And tell me the weather
report for that year.

And cite the tree ring in question.

Do your own work. This is from Wikipedia:
"In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified
for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an
agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments."

It references
^ Reimer Paula J, Baillie Mike GL, Bard Edouard, Bayliss Alex, Beck J
Warren, Bertrand Chanda JH, Blackwell Paul G, Buck Caitlin E, Burr
George S, Cutler Kirsten B, Damon Paul E, Edwards R Lawrence,
Fairbanks Richard G, Friedrich Michael, Guilderson Thomas P, Hogg Alan
G, Hughen Konrad, Kromer Bernd, McCormac Gerry, Manning Sturt, Ramsey
Christopher Bronk, Reimer Ron W, Remmele Sabine, Southon John R,
Stuiver Minze, Talamo Sahra, Taylor FW, van der Plicht Johannes,
Weyhenmeyer Constanze E (2004). "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon age
calibration, 0?26 cal kyr BP" (PDF). Radiocarbon 46 (3): 1029?1058.

But you won't, because you're not really interested. You want to watch
us jump thru hoops, then dismiss the evidence handed to you on a
silver platter.  There's the paper. Go to your nearest university and
look it up.

Kermit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you understand the meaning of the word "calibration curve"?

Yes, but clearly you do not.



It basically means, that C14 dating is incorrect straight off the bat.

No. That is incorrect.



Lets say that "tree ring" is a good "pole" to calibrate C14.

It is.



What about all the other radiometric dating methods? Who calibrates
them?

All self calibrate.



I said "Lets say". Ergo, "tree ring" dating isn't an "exact science"
either.

It is - a very exact science.



Look up "The Yamaguchi Experiment".

Why?

One article I found was written by an eminent (cough. Hack, cough)
scientist by the name of... Are you ready for this? I mean, sitting
down ready, with no beverages near by... Sean Pitman.


Apparently, Yamaguchi found that a sample of tree rings could be
matched to several different areas along the dendeochonological
record, however, concidering the sourse, and concidering that other
papers reference the same "Yamaguchi" paper (1986) I suspect it
another case of quote mining of the "present an problem", and "how the
problem can be mediated", with the latter ignored. I suspect this
because if you google using "Yamaguchi Experiment", dendrochronology
obyains this result:

I can understand why some smaller samples of tree rings would match a
number of possible sites on the record. However, that does not
invalidate the overall record of Dendrochronology.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Yamaguchi+Experiment%22+dendrochronology&btnG=Search

I'm always suspicious of such meager results.

I did exactly what he asked, entered "The Yamaguchi Experiment"
including the quotes. Two hits, neither to do with Dendrochronology.
Conclusion, Spincronic is a pratt!

removing the quotes:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Yamaguchi+Experiment+dendrochronology&btnG=Search

Lots more, and glancing at a few hits there, reinforces my earlier
assumption of Something's Not Right Here (TM)


One last thing. If I haven't replied. Don't get a "chuff on". Iv'e
been busy.

Trolling another group I expect.

Or looking for more quote mine ore.

Could be :)


Boikat
--
Bob.

.