Cocktail! Galaxies evolve in 700 million years, Horseshoe Crabs stay the same after 450 million years

_{Salvador Cordova

October 29, 2013

Genetics, Geology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A galaxy is speculated to form in only 700 million years. By way of contrast, in a comparable stretch of time (450 million years) the Living Fossil horse shoe crab has remained unchanged. In fact the Earth supposedly took only 20 million years to form out of a nebula, and that horse shoe crab remained immutable for 450 million years (22 times longer)! In the same time frame that the horseshoe crab remained the same, fish evolve into birds. Isn’t evolution (or lack thereof in the horseshoe crab) amazing?

One test I suggest is whenever we have a living fossil plus a supposed real fossil of the same species (like a horseshoe crab), to the extent we can do a sequence divergence test (proteins or DNA), let’s do it. Will the molecular clock freeze or tick?

It is hard to tell how old the universe is, but even supposing the universe is old, it does not mean the fossil record is old, or even if the whole fossil record is old, that a given fossil is as old as the paleontologists say it is. Isn’t skepticism to be valued?

Some will say the DNA and proteins aren’t testable since the fossil is too old by now. Well, that’s the same line that said there wouldn’t be any carbon-14 in the 300 million-year-old carboniferous layers or in 70 million year old dino tissue. And we have supposedly found DNA in dinos and carbon-14 to boot. Perhaps we can extract only biotic material someday (DNA or specific proteins) and then do carbon-14 testing. That way we’ll erase the contamination complaint.

The journal Nature reported that we’ve been able to sequence 700,000-year-old horse DNA. If a fossil that is dated tens of million of years is actually younger (say tens of thousands of years), at least in principle, we should be able to get a DNA sequence if we find DNA. If that molecular clock is shown to break for living fossils, that’s bad news for evolutionism. But maybe, like the question of carbon-14 in fossils, these are questions that are taboo to ask.

Calling Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson or anyone willing to do such research. 🙂

One does not need to be a YEC to question paleontological ages. Richard Milton is not a creationist and is an agnostic, and he too is suspicious of the establishment narrative. If the paleontological narrative if false, then Darwinism is false.

NOTES
“Cocktail” designates a speculative idea

Comments

Franklin, In #77, you state,
I would agree [with an extremely low rate of diffusion of carbon from diamond and graphite into water] but would point out then that your usage and reference to carbon diffusion appears to be in error. I would imagine it would be better to refer to groundwater intrusions and the associated humic, fulvic, and carbonate content where you are speaking about C14 (and C13 and C12 as well) diffusion from a matrix into the item of interest. Also some mention of how carbonate (modern C14) interact with bioapatite to contaminate a sample as well as adsorption of atmospheric C14 containing compounds.
I am assuming that you are referring to my #54, where I stated,
An attempt was made to estimate how much carbon would likely be able to contaminate the results, and it was noted that the carbon content of the matrix outside of the bones was about 1/5th of that of the bones themselves (as far as I know, the carbon-14 content of the matrix was. Thus, it could be argued, the carbon should be diffusing out, not in. I think this is a first approximation, but not adequate to completely rule out carbon-14 diffusion into the bones. As long as there is any carbon-14 outside, it can at least theoretically diffuse in. Diffusion can be (and usually is) a two-way street. A stronger case could have been made if the determination could have been made that the matrix had the same, or even better, less of a concentration of carbon-14. An even stronger case could be made if actual diffusion rates had been measured, although the latter would be extremely technically difficult, and the results open to challenge.
I missed where I said that carbon-14 was diffusing in, out, or bidirectional as the elemental form. Perhaps you can show me, and I will be willing to admit the mistake. Most of the time when carbon diffuses, it is as carbon dioxide, carbonate/bicarbonate, or some organic form. You (
There are standards that need to be met and if they aren’t the generated data is little to no value.
) seem nore skeptical of the data than than Bertsche (
Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.
) You are certainly free to be skeptical. However, others who have no particular bias toward Baumgardner (and may have more background information) do not necessarily share your opinion. You might be just a little more cautious (and understated ;) ) about your opinion. I have not actually asked the lab how close to the Baumgardner et al. samples their controls were measured, so I don't know whether they used daily controls, weekly controls, or historical controls. I suppose I could ask. All I know is that the lab expressed confidence in their results, and that Bertsche believed them.Paul Giem_{November 16, 2013
November
11
Nov
16
16
2013
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

That sounds quite close to 0.077 pMC reported from the lab used by Baumgardner et al.
Paul, you cite this figure of 0.077 am I to assume this represents a single measurement by the analytical lab (since there is no indication of SE or SD for this measurement)? Also if there were replicates for this background value what was the sample size (n) used to calculate this value? thanks!franklin_{November 13, 2013
November
11
Nov
13
13
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Actually, I was trying to make a point that you weren’t granting, and possibly couldn’t see. You have an underlying belief that impinges on the way you evaluate data. If it is correct, it assists in assessing the data; if not, it doesn’t.
My beliefs in anything do not have any influence on identifying basic problems in a analytical chemistry data set. There are standards that need to be met and if they aren't the generated data is little to no value. Perhaps you might want to consider stepping up to a mirror and posing the same question to yourself. Analytical chemists come in many flavor of beliefs and they still manage to generate quality data but then again they take care in their experimental design and try to control for all variables, i.e., proper controls.
heoretically, you should see an extremely small amount of diffusion into the water. In practice, it will probably be too small to measure, and probably for diamond it would be measured in units of atoms per thousand years per square centimeter.
I would agree but would point out then that your usage and reference to carbon diffusion appears to be in error. I would imagine it would be better to refer to groundwater intrusions and the associated humic, fulvic, and carbonate content where you are speaking about C14 (and C13 and C12 as well) diffusion from a matrix into the item of interest. Also some mention of how carbonate (modern C14) interact with bioapatite to contaminate a sample as well as adsorption of atmospheric C14 containing compounds.franklin_{November 13, 2013
November
11
Nov
13
13
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Franklin (#75)
Now that’s an understatement no matter how you look at it!
I have been known to understate on occasion.
sure, I understand. when you can’t defend the indefensible you need to look for a way, any way no matter how trivial, to discredit your opponent.
Actually, I was trying to make a point that you weren't granting, and possibly couldn't see. You have an underlying belief that impinges on the way you evaluate data. If it is correct, it assists in assessing the data; if not, it doesn't.
let’s not forget he also notes this:
Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”
This is one place where I tend to understate, rather than giving sweeping generalizations. I think there are some carbon sources, including some phanerozoic sources, that do not have "detectable and reproducible" levels of carbon-14. It is not essential to the argument that these cannot exist. I can give you examples if you wish.
yes, I see looking up thread that my comment did not post but here is a brief synopsis as I am out the door in a moment or two. You stated thaL
As long as there is any carbon-14 outside, it can at least theoretically diffuse in. Diffusion can be (and usually is) a two-way street. A stronger case could have been made if the determination could have been made that the matrix had the same, or even better, less of a concentration of carbon-14
my questions are: Does this diffusion of C14 also apply to C13 and C12 as well? If I place a sample of diamond and graphite each into a container of water what rate of diffusion of carbon atoms should we expect to see from the area of high concentration (diamond and graphite) to low concentration (water)?
Well, now I know why I couldn't find your comment. Theoretically, you should see an extremely small amount of diffusion into the water. In practice, it will probably be too small to measure, and probably for diamond it would be measured in units of atoms per thousand years per square centimeter.Paul Giem_{November 13, 2013
November
11
Nov
13
13
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

I thank you for your reference. Dr. Bertsche has quite reasonable credentials.
Now that's an understatement no matter how you look at it!
When I noted several remarks made by you I did not intend to imply that you were wrong on all, or even any, of them. I certainly was not demanding a defense of them. It is just that when I see comments of this kind, all weighing in on one side of a series of debates, it is not unreasonable to believe that they are being made by someone whose position is opposed to the underlying philosophy which gets consistently attacked.
sure, I understand. when you can't defend the indefensible you need to look for a way, any way no matter how trivial, to discredit your opponent.
I note that he also implicitly implies that the Baumgardner et al. data are real in one sense.
let's not forget he also notes this:
Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”

Could you repeat it please?
yes, I see looking up thread that my comment did not post but here is a brief synopsis as I am out the door in a moment or two. You stated thaL
As long as there is any carbon-14 outside, it can at least theoretically diffuse in. Diffusion can be (and usually is) a two-way street. A stronger case could have been made if the determination could have been made that the matrix had the same, or even better, less of a concentration of carbon-14
my questions are: Does this diffusion of C14 also apply to C13 and C12 as well? If I place a sample of diamond and graphite each into a container of water what rate of diffusion of carbon atoms should we expect to see from the area of high concentration (diamond and graphite) to low concentration (water)?franklin_{November 13, 2013
November
11
Nov
13
13
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Franklin, I think we understand each other a little better. When I noted several remarks made by you I did not intend to imply that you were wrong on all, or even any, of them. I certainly was not demanding a defense of them. It is just that when I see comments of this kind, all weighing in on one side of a series of debates, it is not unreasonable to believe that they are being made by someone whose position is opposed to the underlying philosophy which gets consistently attacked. I thank you for your reference. Dr. Bertsche has quite reasonable credentials. I note that he did not publish this in the peer-reviewed literature, but that does not bother me too much. I note that he also implicitly implies that the Baumgardner et al. data are real in one sense. First, generally,
While this conclusion explains the higher values for the biological samples in general, it does not account for all the details. Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.
And with regard to Baumgardner et al.'s data themselves,
Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.
Also, I think we can lay to rest the idea that the laboratory is mythical;
The expert who prepared and measured the RATE samples suspects that the coal samples had been contaminated before reaching his laboratory, probably in situ.
If we trust Dr. Bertsche, there is a laboratory, and an expert who did the work, whose identity is somewhat of an open secret, and the coal samples were significantly higher than that laboratory's standard processing background. (Of course, maybe he is lying too! ;) ) Furthermore,
At least one laboratory reports sample chemistry contamination as low as 0.08 pMC (excluding chemical pretreatment, which can be a significant contribution), but this value does “not necessarily apply to other laboratories” [15].
That sounds quite close to 0.077 pMC reported from the lab used by Baumgardner et al. Finally, on your last comment (revised),
I notice that you have made no comment about the specifics of nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground.
Well, yes I did make a brief comment on a side issue in your post but you never responded. I also thought we had an agreement that there is no time limit for our responses that is unless you think you have the market on ‘busy’ cornered?
I guess I missed the comment you made. I just read your more recent comments carefully, and still missed it. Could you repeat it please? And you are absolutely right, there is no time limit (except if the moderators impose one, in which case not commenting will be understood). I viewed my comment more as a reminder than a condemnation.Paul Giem_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Scordova, Thanks for your kind words. As for DaveScot, I'm sorry to hear he was banned. He never was that much trouble to me, and I appreciated his unusual take on things.Paul Giem_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

correcting blockquote screwup
The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/educat.....ate-ri.htm and
These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/educat.....bon-kb.htm
I notice that you have made no comment about the specifics of nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground.
Well, yes I did make a brief comment on a side issue in your post but you never responded. I also thought we had an agreement that there is no time limit for our responses that is unless you think you have the market on 'busy' cornered?franklin_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

You are obviously not reading for comprehension. I have several times stated that I know of the lab and its historic background which has been published. The lab was chosen specifically because of its low background. Why you think that I am saying that the lab “might not exist” is beyond me unless you are blinded by partisanship.
thanks for your condescending remarks! I really don't care if you state that you know of the lab that piece of data is obviously missing from the manuscript in question. As you know any reputable journal would never allow such an omission to pass review but then again Baumgardner (and you by proxy) aren't really advocating any credible reporting of the experiment as practicing scientists feel obligated to do in their writings. You state that the lab has low backgrounds and that is something that no one reading the manuscript can verify outside of trusting you or the author of the paper. I was surprised at your poorly worded sentence indicating that “assuming it exists” brings into question its actual existence. Don't blame me for your poor sentence structure.
I think you are keying off of the “assuming it exists”. The antecedent for “it” is “responsibility to release the data”, not “data”. If you were a more sympathetic reader, that might have been more obvious, especially when you had tried your impression once in #49
So now it appears that you think a scientist has no obligation (or responsibility) to give a complete enough account of their experimental methodology so that others can replicate their analysis....this includes using the same lab for verification. What is there to be sympathetic about missing details in the methodology. I've reviewed more than a few manuscripts for publication and I would never allow an omission like this pass review. Evidently, it appears that I have higher standards for scientific writing than you or Baumgardner.
There is not a “lack of any characterization of the background”. There is a lack of characterization that you will accept, but it has been stated repeatedly that the background was 0.077 pMC according to the laboratory. If you were well-read in this area, you would know that this has been reported. Just because you do not wish to believe that this is the background, doesn’t make a “lack of any characterization of the background”.
Sorry that is exactly the situation in this case. Show me the data and if it is as you say I am more than willing to believe it as has been alleged by you and Baumgardner. Once again you are wrong with your assertions.
We don’t “both agree” and you should know it. Because I believe that the experiment could have been improved, does not mean that I consider the data worthless.
the data is only valid in that it serves to support the other literature cited in Baumgardner's manuscript that the data are representative and support the notion and magnitude of the background values that are expected to be added via chemical processing for this analytical procedure.
The straightforward interpretation of your comment was that you didn’t really care whether there was carbon-14 in fossil carbon, and if so you really didn’t care whether it was residual, and therefore, it didn’t matter to you whether the Phanerozoic was hundreds of millions of years old, or whether it was less than 100,000 years old.
Care? That is a strange word to use. The data is what the data is and to date there is nothing to overturn the conclusion from the majority of the published literature that the values Baumgardner reports are representative of the noise in this procedure. It will take some careful and exacting science to document otherwise and that is certainly not the case with this reported data set. You even acknowledge it was done poorly and someone (perhaps yourself) will need to go back and do the experiment 'right'.
https://uncommondescent.com.....e-details/ you defended Nick Matzke
so?
https://uncommondescent.com.....-religion/ you criticized religious communities for contributing to measles outbreaks, and mentioned “science denialism” in a context that most easily implied that religious communities were involved in it.
Absolutely! That is easily verified and if you were well read on the subject you would know that is true.
https://uncommondescent.com.....ess-stand/ You criticized Mung for asking for a text in macro-evolutionary biology, saying that the request had already been answered by 2 citations, but never gave them or the references.
So? Mung is lazy and in his drive-by postings at TSZ where he ignores where people respond to him and then goes on to ignore those responses and continues to make the claims that no one respond to him. I'm not inclined to provide him with anything he can't find by reading the threads he participates in and where people supply him with the information he requested.
https://uncommondescent.com.....y-failing/ You defend Nick Matzke and trash ID-friendly journals. I presented a proposal to you at the end and you never responded.
Sorry to disappoint you,Paul, but I don't have the time to follow every thread to its end. I'd be willing to accept your proposal if you are offering some funding to compensate me for my time. If not why don't you take your own advice and do the project yourself? Otherwise, I'll stick to focusing on my own research and writing. If you don't see a problem with a 20-30 editor board (what other journal has such a structure?) of a journal self-publishing their own articles then we will just agree to disagree. By the way what is the life span of an ID journal? How many issues and years do they persist over? The ID-friendly journal's track record speak all too loudly for themselves.
Perhaps you can cite where these “experts familiar with the data” find them “fatally flawed”. I cited the Kathleen Hunt article in TalkOrigins to say they did not. It only seems fair that you have at least one reference to say they do.
sure, fair enough: How about Dr. Bertsche who received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm and
hese and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C”
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
I notice that you have made no comment about the specifics of nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground.
Well, yes I did make a brief comment. So once again you are wrong in your assertions about me....good job, Paul!
franklin_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Dr. Giem, Thank you for your comments. I highlighted some of your comments and introduced you to the UD community here. https://uncommondescent.com/geology/saluting-dr-paul-giem/ Thank you for all your work. I've enjoyed reading some of your publications. One of the admins, DaveScot, may have given you trouble here at UD in the past. My apologies. DaveScot has been long evicted and banned from UD. Salscordova_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Franklin, A few corrections are in order. In #57 you write,
It was you who suggested that the data on the lab’s identity might not exist. If you don’t believe me go read your opening paragraph on your post #48. I quoted it once for you to reference perhaps reading your own words in your own post might get you to realize that you made the assumption that it might not exist. What else am I to conclude?
You are obviously not reading for comprehension. I have several times stated that I know of the lab and its historic background which has been published. The lab was chosen specifically because of its low background. Why you think that I am saying that the lab "might not exist" is beyond me unless you are blinded by partisanship. My original comment was,
Sorry you don’t like the reason I gave. I can’t give another because it wouldn’t be true. And, as you note, the responsibility to release the data is not mine anyway. Assuming it exists, it is Baumgardner et al.‘s. Complain to him, not to me.
I think you are keying off of the "assuming it exists". The antecedent for "it" is "responsibility to release the data", not "data". If you were a more sympathetic reader, that might have been more obvious, especially when you had tried your impression once in #49
It seems that you are saying there is some question if an outside lab even analyzed these samples? That raises some troubling concerns.
and I had denied it in #52
No, that’s not what I’m saying, and it’s not what I mean. I have personal knowledge that that’s going way overboard; from your perspecive, you won’t believe anything until there is no way not to, because the data just can’t be right; “science” just can’t be that far off.
At that point, at least, you should have wondered if your interpretation was correct. You have continually misinterpreted my comments similarly. In #57 you write
All you can say, given the lack of any characterization of the background, would have to be based on what is found in the literature. That literature states, using Baumgardner’s references that the background contamination levels can range between 0.077 (unverified) to 0.8 pMC.
There is not a "lack of any characterization of the background". There is a lack of characterization that you will accept, but it has been stated repeatedly that the background was 0.077 pMC according to the laboratory. If you were well-read in this area, you would know that this has been reported. Just because you do not wish to believe that this is the background, doesn't make a "lack of any characterization of the background". This is similar to your claim in #49 that I admitted that the data "lack any credibility" or "any validity", and that
… this is a dead issue and we both agree to the fatal nature of the analytical chemistry with this report have at it.
We don't "both agree" and you should know it. Because I believe that the experiment could have been improved, does not mean that I consider the data worthless. I am interested in your statement that I have misinterpreted you. I mentioned (#52)that (IMO) "this is obviously a subject where you have a dog in this hunt, on which a lot is riding." You denied this in #57.
Nope. You’re not very good at this detection thing so I suggest you just stick to discussing the data.
The straightforward interpretation of your comment was that you didn't really care whether there was carbon-14 in fossil carbon, and if so you really didn't care whether it was residual, and therefore, it didn't matter to you whether the Phanerozoic was hundreds of millions of years old, or whether it was less than 100,000 years old. I went back and looked at some of your old comments: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ you defended Nick Matzke https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/measles-and-religion/ you criticized religious communities for contributing to measles outbreaks, and mentioned "science denialism" in a context that most easily implied that religious communities were involved in it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-the-witness-stand/ You criticized Mung for asking for a text in macro-evolutionary biology, saying that the request had already been answered by 2 citations, but never gave them or the references. https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/new-mechanism-of-evolution-poof/ you argued for functionality (but apparently conceded not enzymatic activity) for protein/polypeptide chains of less than 100 amino acids. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-sting-shows-peer-review-catastrophically-failing/ You defend Nick Matzke and trash ID-friendly journals. I presented a proposal to you at the end and you never responded. Somehow that doesn't seem to me to fit the profile of someone who has no belief in, or interest in, the question of the age of life on earth. Now, it is possible that you believe so strongly that an old-age position is correct, that you think there is no "hunt" and therefore believe yourself to be above the fray. Somehow, I think that those who believe there is a "hunt" will not see your position in that way. But whatever. This exchange (#52, #57) needs clarification
However, experts familiar with the data do not find them fatally flawed
Well yes they do. But it appears that your confusing the point of the C14 datas existence and the conclusions derived from that data. That is where Baumgardner jumps the shark and if you asked the experts cited in the talkorigins article I am confident that they will agree with the other experts from the field that condemn those conclusions and handling of the data.
Perhaps you can cite where these "experts familiar with the data" find them "fatally flawed". I cited the Kathleen Hunt article in TalkOrigins to say they did not. It only seems fair that you have at least one reference to say they do. There is this exchange with Phinehas (#53 and #58):
It sure would be nice if someone with the proper qualifications and understanding would run proper and valid experiments to get to the bottom of this issue.
They already have done this. Where do you think the published literature on the issue comes from? From my readings there isn’t any sort of issue outside of the generation of a very poor study and erroneous conclusions derived from inadequate data collection.
I'd really like to know where in the published literature Baumgardner et al.'s data are cited (or mentioned) specifically, let alone where their interpretation is challenged. Now if you mean the blogosphere, I'd still like to have links. Since you've read them, you must know them, or have known them at one time. Part of our disagreement is that you want a citation in the literature (#57, citing #52)
That’s a little hard to do when the lab that is going to do the experiments is the one making the suggestion that there was no need for internal controls.
Sorry, Paul, I just don’t believe this is the case given my experience with quantitative chemical labs. Give me a citation for your assertion so I can put the claim in context.
for something that was a personal communication to me. Not everything that is true is in the peer-reviewed literature. Look, I have already stated that I know the lab, the background (at least, historically), and you do not wish to accept the idea that I know. That's fine. Keep disbelieving me. Say that I lied (or am delusional), as I stated that I know something you are sure is untrue. And you are not about to test to see if I just might be right. Just do one other thing. Explain the Paleo Group data using your premises. I notice that you have made no comment about the specifics of nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground.Paul Giem_{November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Wow, galaxies evolve in 700 million years? Oh and by the way, what frame of reference is this time relative to? For example, how much time has passed from the Beginning relative to an early photon? And don't forget that space-time in the inflationary model originally expanded profoundly faster than the speed of light. - QQuerius_{November 8, 2013
November
11
Nov
8
08
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Franklin,
Ifso, then let’s say machine noise detects 0.01 to 0.04 pMC (just assume for the sake of the question) with some control. And let’s assume that it tested to this same value in the morning, and the afternoon..even all week… I agree, it might not be ideal. But why couldn’t that set of values be considered to have at least some credibility?
Are you going to use 0.01 or 0.04 in your data anaysis with no internal controls? wouldn’t you have to use both to attempt to capture the true value and how is this any different than using a lab’s historic high and low values in the data analysis. What if every other week the controls show a value of 0.1 to 0.4 (an order of magnitude difference) then how would you justified on using the lower values rather than the higher values that the lab has demonstrated they produce?
Yeah, I was proposing both. In my view, the max would be preferred in these contentious cases. But low values should be noted, imo. The difference to using historic values, is I was also proposing that controls (high and low) were taken over a short period of time (a day to a week) rather than over years of operation. One could call that technically historic, but one could call a control done five minutes ago historic - that's why I assume you mean long/year(s) history of the lab's control values.JGuy_{November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

I may have made a mistake in thinking Paul had observing labs (non clinical) having handled controls in that fashion.
it is very atypical for a quant lab to not run controls when analyzing samples.
Well, if anything like what Paul said happens in any of the AMS labs, then it will at least be better than using historic highs/lows
If you are not going to run controls which historic value do you use to control for lab errors? Do you use the best value the lab ever obtained? That would not be prudent since it may not be representative of what is generated on a daily, weekly, yearly basis. Would you use the highest value ever generated by the lab in question? Again this also may be an atypical run for the lab and thus not be representative of the true lab contribution to the sample C14 content. If you use the mean of the labs value you lose the variance present at both tails of the data. no, the only way to present the data in the absence of controls is to report the potential range of values that the lab has generated in its history using the same methodology.
Correct me if wrong, but aren’t the controls here more-so finding noise detected by the machine, and not so-much from the sample cleaning?
That would be very wrong. The issue here is that to isolate the carbon in a sample it is treated, via acid hydrolysis or coombustion, to convert all the carbon into carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is then captured and condensed into a graphite target. it is during this chemical processing that C14 is introduced and thus the need for the inclusion of proper controls to monitor this multi-step chemical manipulation of the sample. this is why I mentioned previously that it is not correct to just take a vale from a graohite sample and use it as a representation of the background and/or contamination value. You must process the graphite identical to the other samples, i.e., combustion and recondensation. Of course you also need to run instrument controls, reagent controls, spike recoveries, ect. to most accurately estimate. what the 'true' value is.
Ifso, then let’s say machine noise detects 0.01 to 0.04 pMC (just assume for the sake of the question) with some control. And let’s assume that it tested to this same value in the morning, and the afternoon..even all week… I agree, it might not be ideal. But why couldn’t that set of values be considered to have at least some credibility?
Are you going to use 0.01 or 0.04 in your data anaysis with no internal controls? wouldn't you have to use both to attempt to capture the true value and how is this any different than using a lab's historic high and low values in the data analysis. What if every other week the controls show a value of 0.1 to 0.4 (an order of magnitude difference) then how would you justified on using the lower values rather than the higher values that the lab has demonstrated they produce?franklin_{November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

correction: "Unless, let’s say in the use of alcohol or acids, you use ~~a different~~ the same batch of the material ~~for~~ from test to test."JGuy_{November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Franklin. I may have made a mistake in thinking Paul had observing labs (non clinical) having handled controls in that fashion. My reading comprehension skills are about as good as your blockquoting this week. :D Well, if anything like what Paul said happens in any of the AMS labs, then it will at least be better than using historic highs/lows. BTW: When you say historic highs/lows, I'm reading this to mean the entire high/low of the life cycle of the specific process i.e.{specific lab, machine, etc..}... not over the duration of specific set/group of tests or a short period (day to week) of testing. Correct me if wrong, but aren't the controls here more-so finding noise detected by the machine, and not so-much from the sample cleaning? For example, there seems no way to do a control on something that has to be repeated with different materials. Unless, let's say in the use of alcohol or acids, you use a different batch of the material for test to test. Seems to me that steps are going to be pretty consistent, especailly if you have observed stable control values. Ifso, then let's say machine noise detects 0.01 to 0.04 pMC (just assume for the sake of the question) with some control. And let's assume that it tested to this same value in the morning, and the afternoon..even all week... I agree, it might not be ideal. But why couldn't that set of values be considered to have at least some credibility?JGuy_{November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

franklin:
They already have done this. Where do you think the published literature on the issue comes from? From my readings there isn’t any sort of issue outside of the generation of a very poor study and erroneous conclusions derived from inadequate data collection.
But how aware of their own shortcomings were these testers? Frankly, franklin, I'm not sure I could accept the results of any test you didn't personally conduct. After all, how many blogs have these other researches posted to? And if they haven't asserted on a blog just how qualified they are, how could I take them seriously?
It would be nice if someone funded me with the substantial $$ to redo every piece of junk science produced but until they do it isn’t in my job description to correct others errors.
Among my many reasons for wishing to be independently wealthy, funding you to research this very issue surely ranks right up there. But alas...Phinehas_{November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Historic highs and lows? Frankin, it shouldn’t take a scientist to see how sloppy your suggestion compares to what Paul (@ 52) described actually occurs – which is also what I was referring to:
jguy, The difference, and important distinction, is that the analytes that Paul is making reference too are present in high concentrations....there's lots of stuff to detect and missing a few doesn't typically, alter the ramifications of the results. These well established wet chemistry methods have few interferences and for the most part little to no sources of outside contaminations...excepting quantitative analysis for blood alcohol (and other such) endpoints. In other words, these are easy and routine analysis, granted. Not so with trace analysis where your endpoint is, allegedly, nearly equal to the noise of the analytical method. It is like comparing apples to burros it is that far apart. Paul knows that as well.franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Franklin:
That’s sloppy science. If you are going to attempt to do an experiment, with the analytical lab running no controls, the only honest thing you can do is calculate the range of ages based on the labs historic lowest and highest analyzed control samples. Of course when you do this the data often looks a mess with little interpretive value but at least you are more accurately portraying where the actual data might lie.
Historic highs and lows? Frankin, it shouldn't take a scientist to see how sloppy your suggestion compares to what Paul (@ 52) described actually occurs - which is also what I was referring to:
You obviously have never run a clinical lab. Once a process reaches industrial production and has been proven to be stable, it is common to run one set of controls at the beginning of the run and one at the end. As long as the results are reasonable, I have dealt with licensed labs that ran controls once a day, because I saw them. You may argue that this is not ideal. It depends on what you call ideal. There is a cost associated with running controls, and if your controls are as many as your samples, you have just doubled the cost. Contact a nearby clinical lab and see how often they do controls. (Maybe you’ll never believe in laboratory results again! :) )
JGuy_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

<blockquote.Paul addressed this in his later comments. Fiscal and practical use of interpolating controls – fi I understood correctly – makes sense to me (sure, it’s not ideal, but it can apparently work). That's sloppy science. If you are going to attempt to do an experiment, with the analytical lab running no controls, the only honest thing you can do is calculate the range of ages based on the labs historic lowest and highest analyzed control samples. Of course when you do this the data often looks a mess with little interpretive value but at least you are more accurately portraying where the actual data might lie.franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Franklin.
If a demonstration that the data that the RATE project presented is representative of the expected noise in this type of quantitative analytical chemistry doesn’t change your mind what would?
Actually, that would change my mind on any certainty of scientists having detected those C14 that was native to the sample tested. But you're assuming something has been demonstrated here - it hasn't. Even the pdf I linked (which has a table Giem assembled) shows values from labs where the error (full range) is less than the noise you claim. So, I suppose there will be some disagreement with you and Paul on that.
Not ideal but rather a necessity in order for the data to have any interpretability and credibility.
Paul addressed this in his later comments. Fiscal and practical use of interpolating controls - fi I understood correctly - makes sense to me (sure, it's not ideal, but it can apparently work).
There are well documented means by which old deposits can be come contaminated via bioturbation, groundwater intrusioon, uranium decay, and adsoprtion of atmospheric CO2 to mention a few. Nothing of what I said or anything about C14 indicates any level of radiation that would be lethal. You need to brush up on how C14 is created and then perhaps you will understand why your question is ridiculous.
I didn't say it would be based on anything you said. And I'm not sure what question you find ridiculous. You didn't quote one. Assuming the question was whether or not radioactive levels, to account for C14 production, would be too high for life, is not a ridiculous question (unless you assume the endpoint). It's an obvious question. Knowing how de novo C14 would be produced via nuclear synthesis would not make a difference. What can be asked is, to account for the C14 levels found, via nuclear synthesis, when you calculate backwards...and have a final answer on what is required, would that necessary level of radioactivity at the start be lethal for life in that environment - simple question, there's no need to berate it as ridiculous - unless that is meant to be a method of debate. And if it is found to be (not just assumed not to be), then you can not account for C14 via nuclear synthesis - at least not by any significant measure.JGuy_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

It sure would be nice if someone with the proper qualifications and understanding would run proper and valid experiments to get to the bottom of this issue.
They already have done this. Where do you think the published literature on the issue comes from? From my readings there isn't any sort of issue outside of the generation of a very poor study and erroneous conclusions derived from inadequate data collection. It would be nice if someone funded me with the substantial $$ to redo every piece of junk science produced but until they do it isn't in my job description to correct others errors. If they demonstrate themselves not to be competent at basic research they will get weeded out.franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

First, this is obviously a subject where you have a dog in this hunt, on which a lot is riding.
Nope. You're not very good at this detection thing so I suggest you just stick to discussing the data. <blockquote.Even after I have stated that I know the lab and the background, you have made no effort to find a lab with that background. Rather, you insinuated that the experiments themselves were never done, but rather dry-labbed: Sorry, Paul, it is not my job to go searching out information that should have been included in the publication. It is enough for me to point out the defect in the presentation of the study. It was you who suggested that the data on the lab's identity might not exist. If you don't believe me go read your opening paragraph on your post #48. I quoted it once for you to reference perhaps reading your own words in your own post might get you to realize that you made the assumption that it might not exist. What else am I to conclude? <blockquote.You just want the data to go away: The data will go away and be ignored like every other bad piece of science. Except the ICR will keep pounding away at it in order to confuse and misrepresent the science to people like jguy that don't have the background to vet the claims being made. That is dishoinesty and even tghe ASA has come out and stated that their fellow christians are way off base with the misrepresentations they are making.
Sorry, the data is what it is, warts and all.
Yes it is. All you can say, given the lack of any characterization of the background, would have to be based on what is found in the literature. That literature states, using Baumgardner's references that the background contamination levels can range between 0.077 (unverified) to 0.8 pMC. All of the data presented fall within this range. The only charitable conclusion that can be reached is that the study provides data representative of the noise found in AMS C14 analysis. a also cites a study comparing decay counts with AMS methods and found that the sample prep methods added 0.4 pMC to the samples. Again within the ranges found in the literature.
You obviously have never run a clinical lab.
We aren't talking about a clinical lab. We are discussing a quantitative analytical lab. Big difference as I'm sure you are aware.
There is a cost associated with running controls, and if your controls are as many as your samples, you have just doubled the cost. So? If it takes that type of characterization to produce quality research data then that is what is necessary. You don't get to cut crucial corners because you don't want to spend the money. You need to budget for the needs of the analytical work.
That’s a little hard to do when the lab that is going to do the experiments is the one making the suggestion that there was no need for internal controls.
Sorry, Paul, I just don't believe this is the case given my experience with quantitative chemical labs. Give me a citation for your assertion so I can put the claim in context.
However, experts familiar with the data do not find them fatally flawed
Well yes they do. But it appears that your confusing the point of the C14 datas existence and the conclusions derived from that data. That is where Baumgardner jumps the shark and if you asked the experts cited in the talkorigins article I am confident that they will agree with the other experts from the field that condemn those conclusions and handling of the data.
You appear to be arguing that nobody should read the book chapter or the paper, since they are fatally flawed.
yes. There are much higher quality publications that should be looked at rather than the wasting time on junk science.
I will close this comment by pointing out that science is reproducible. If you don’t like their data, show that it is not reproducible. I’ll argue on your side then regarding this issue.
The data do show the repeatable nature of contamination from sample processing and how it is always present at some level. Thus the need for adequate controls.
franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Not by me personally. That is, I would not reject the claims on the basis of a blog discussion. I’d at least be tentative as with any science, especially since the RATE team did the work, and if compelled, seek clarification from them (e.g. Baumgardner).
If a demonstration that the data that the RATE project presented is representative of the expected noise in this type of quantitative analytical chemistry doesn't change your mind what would?
At best, going by his comments/posts, you two mainly converge to agreeing on an ideal nature of the data and ideal scenario on how controls are implemented.
Not ideal but rather a necessity in order for the data to have any interpretability and credibility. paul agrees that the someone needs to go and do the experiment correctly which indicates he understands it was not done correctly and that the data cannot be trusted. <blockquote.I have to think you do accept that there is C14 detected in material supposedly tens (or even hundreds) of millions of years old. Perhaps, you felt it didn’t imply radioactivity would be too high to kill life around it. There are well documented means by which old deposits can be come contaminated via bioturbation, groundwater intrusioon, uranium decay, and adsoprtion of atmospheric CO2 to mention a few. Nothing of what I said or anything about C14 indicates any level of radiation that would be lethal. You need to brush up on how C14 is created and then perhaps you will understand why your question is ridiculous.franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Frankin
I don’t see this as leading to a necessary rejecting the claims of finding C14 levels though – just more clarification at the time.
Of course that is exactly what it means, i.e., rejection of C14 levels beyond that contirbuted to the sample processing.
Not by me personally. That is, I would not reject the claims on the basis of a blog discussion. I'd at least be tentative as with any science, especially since the RATE team did the work, and if compelled, seek clarification from them (e.g. Baumgardner). My skepticism of having any need to reject the claim, by this discussion alone, seems would be justified even more-so, since I may have misunderstood how and to what degree to which you and Paul agreed. At best, going by his comments/posts, you two mainly converge to agreeing on an ideal nature of the data and ideal scenario on how controls are implemented.
Should I read that to imply, that if those levels are correct, then it means the radioactivity levels at the time of deposit might have then been too high for life to survive?
No. Where (and how) did you ever arrive at such an erroneous conclusion?
It wasn't a conclusion - just a question. I understood that it didn't necessarily follow. It was simply that focus was largely steered toward explaining C14 levels (at least in part) by lab contamination. But my feeling was that if one would accept that there was any C14 not due to lab contamination, then it would have to be explained anyway. Especially, if the levels reported from the lab were anywhere near close, since then there would reason to think radioactivity levels when the dinosaur was alive would have been too high to survive. But in retrospect, since you did invoke the de novo production of C14 argument, I have to think you do accept that there is C14 detected in material supposedly tens (or even hundreds) of millions of years old. Perhaps, you felt it didn't imply radioactivity would be too high to kill life around it.JGuy_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

We will now move to another set of (related) topics, namely,
the de novo production of carbon-14 and the problem of carbon-14 diffusion in dinosaur bones
We will start with a brief history. Carbon-14 has been used to date civilization and pre-historic human remains. It attracted creationist attention early on, although most of the focus was on the fact that carbon-14 production and decay were not in equilibrium. Later on, the apparent presence of carbon-14 in coal was noted by R. H. Brown, among others. Andrew Snelling dated several pieces of carbonaceous material in old geological settings that had significant amounts of carbon-14 in them. At about this time, I wrote an article detailing several different creationist models for explaining carbon-14 data while keeping a short timeframe for life on earth. See http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm . These models were testable at certain points, and I recommended testing them. One of the predictions of one set of models was that there should be a small but at least theoretically measurable amount of carbon-14 in fossil material that would not have been expected to have it by standard theory. That is to say, the difference was testable. I then set about to review the literature, a fairly close to exhaustive review (and AFAIK the best one out there), at http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm . I took my results to the ICR, and persuaded them that they should do a formal systematic test of radiocarbon in coal. Their response was, paraphrased, "We don't need that data. We already have enough data. That would be like shooting fish in a barrel." My response was, "True, but there are a lot of people who don't believe there are any fish in that barrel." In the end they raised money for the project and did it. One problem with their data has been detailed above. Its seriousness depends on 1. whether one is willing to believe their results, 2. whether one is willing to believe their statements about the lab background, and 3. the level of evidence one is willing to insist on (which can be related to 1.) The willingness to believe results is not a trivial point. I remember going to a lab once to double-check (actually triple-check) a reported negative pregnancy test in a lady who seemed to have classical symptoms of pregnancy. I found out that someone had entered it into the computer in error. Similarly, the lab routinely double-checks wildly abnormal potassiums, so if one wants a STAT result and suspect the potassium will be high, one is well advised to tell the lab to report the first value as a preliminary, so as to get a jump on treating the patient properly, rather than waiting for the final report. However, this willingness to believe results can be abused. If one starts out by absolutely insisting that one's side is right, one can always find a flaw in the data. One is tempted to label those with contrary data liars, so as not to have to deal with the data. One can then disbelieve their data, and wind up cherry-picking data to support one's theory, in several different ways, until one completely lines one's cocoon with cherry-picked data. This goes for all sides. In any case, Baumgardner et al.did their study, and the latest report was published in the RATE book. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf Kathleen Hunt made her inquiry to experts about the time that the research was actually being done. Heretofore, the usual explanation for most of the data was contamination during sample processing. Depending on the lab, proven contamination may range from 0.04 pMC or less, to 0.25 pMC. But by this time some researchers were coming face to face with data that was not easily explained by laboratory contamination. Furthermore, they were having to bet either with the data and against theory, or with theory and against data. Physicists get very cautious at that point. They were having to fill the Borexino detector with some 80 tons (5+ meters in diameter) of scintillant, and if it contained as much carbon-14 as the data indicated, the experiment would be useless. They finally opted to go with methane distilled from natural gas, naturally low in carbon-13, and to an even greater extent, carbon-14. That is why they answered Kathleen Hunt the way they did. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Several studies of natural gas have been published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, but the most fascinating data that has arrived are those of the Paleo Group on carbon-14 in dinosaur bones, which are hopefully well-known to the discussants here. Those bones have between 0.7 and 7 pMC, which is beyond even the worst reported contamination for a reputable lab. Therefore even if one tried to critique the Baumgardner et al. data, the critique would fail with the Paleo Group data. An attempt was made to estimate how much carbon would likely be able to contaminate the results, and it was noted that the carbon content of the matrix outside of the bones was about 1/5th of that of the bones themselves (as far as I know, the carbon-14 content of the matrix was. Thus, it could be argued, the carbon should be diffusing out, not in. I think this is a first approximation, but not adequate to completely rule out carbon-14 diffusion into the bones. As long as there is any carbon-14 outside, it can at least theoretically diffuse in. Diffusion can be (and usually is) a two-way street. A stronger case could have been made if the determination could have been made that the matrix had the same, or even better, less of a concentration of carbon-14. An even stronger case could be made if actual diffusion rates had been measured, although the latter would be extremely technically difficult, and the results open to challenge. That may answer one of your questions. The second question, nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground, is related to the question of what to do with all this radiocarbon. One could attribute it to residual activity, but this necessitates a short age. For at 250,000 radiocarbon years, there should be less than one atom of carbon-14 per gram of carbon, and at 1 million years, if we start out with the entire earth's mass (5.972 x 10^27 g--Wikipedia) being nothing but carbon-14, allow that 14.0 g of carbon-14 contains 6.02 x 10^23 atoms of carbon 14, we have (5.972 x 10^27g) x (6.02 x 10^23 atoms) / 14.0 g =2.57 x 10^50 atoms. Taking the log2 of that, we have 167.5, which is the number of half-lives necessary to reduce this to 1 atom. 1 million years contains 1 x 10^6 years / (5730 years / half life) = 174.5 half lives, which means we have 7 half-lives (for a factor of around 128) to reduce that last atom to nitrogen-14. Residual activity means short age. Period. So how else can we explain this carbon-14? For a long time, it was thought that contamination during sample processing accounted for all the carbon-14. But as Harry Gove, PhD and company are realizing, this is not an adequate explanation. So there are three others; machine error, contamination underground, and nuclear synthesis underground. These are discussed in my second paper. Machine error and contamination underground are discounted by most experts, leading to the only known option, nuclear synthesis underground. There are quantitative problems with the nuclear synthesis that are detailed in both my second paper (and my book Scientific Theology before that), and in Baumgardner et al. Briefly, calculations have already been done, and the numbers of neutrons are orders of magnitude too low to account for the prevalence of carbon-14. In addition, unless the concentration of neutrons is much higher over the past 6000 years or so than in previous epochs (a, shall we say, non-uniformitarian assumption), such neutrons should have had an effect on such isotopes as cadmium 113. samarium-149, and gadolinium-157. The people who propose this have (so far) not worked out the numbers to see how many neutrons it would take to produce carbon-14 in situ. That should mostly answer the second question, although for franklin's sake we can always go through the excruciating details if he wants.Paul Giem_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

franklin:
The question is why was there no controls in the first place. It speaks loudly as to the qualifications of the people designing and conducting these experiments. They produce crap once what’s to stop them from doing it again since they seem unaware of their own shortcomings. These people are trying to pass themselves off as experts in the field and when they make serious errors they earn the criticisms that are rightly heaped upon them and it is obvious that they aren’t to be trusted.
It sure would be nice if someone with the proper qualifications and understanding would run proper and valid experiments to get to the bottom of this issue. Frankly, franklin, you might be the only one with enough awareness about your own shortcomings to be trusted with such a task. I hope you will consider taking it upon yourself to rerun these tests in a way that is completely above board to the point that the results cannot be questioned. Otherwise, I can see no clear way to put this issue to rest.Phinehas_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Franklin, Just a few points, and then we will probably have to agree to disagree on the rest of this. First, this is obviously a subject where you have a dog in this hunt, on which a lot is riding. Thus, I don't expect to be able to convince you. Even after I have stated that I know the lab and the background, you have made no effort to find a lab with that background. Rather, you insinuated that the experiments themselves were never done, but rather dry-labbed:
It seems that you are saying there is some question if an outside lab even analyzed these samples? That raises some troubling concerns.
No, that's not what I'm saying, and it's not what I mean. I have personal knowledge that that's going way overboard; from your perspecive, you won't believe anything until there is no way not to, because the data just can't be right; "science" just can't be that far off. You just want the data to go away:
Have you suggested to Baumgardner that they retract their manuscript(s) until they can do the experiment correctly?
Sorry, the data is what it is, warts and all. You write,
Paul, you know as well as I do that with this type of analytical chemistry controls must be included in every single run otherwise your data is worthless. They (proper controls) are not a desirability they are an absolute necessity. In many cases controls samples may exceed the unknowns being analyzed simply because of the importance of characterizing the noise associated with the entire process.
You obviously have never run a clinical lab. Once a process reaches industrial production and has been proven to be stable, it is common to run one set of controls at the beginning of the run and one at the end. As long as the results are reasonable, I have dealt with licensed labs that ran controls once a day, because I saw them. You may argue that this is not ideal. It depends on what you call ideal. There is a cost associated with running controls, and if your controls are as many as your samples, you have just doubled the cost. Contact a nearby clinical lab and see how often they do controls. (Maybe you'll never believe in laboratory results again! :) ) You write,
That there was any discussion of the need for controls speaks loudly to the problems with this venture. Anyone who spoke against the need for controls should have been shown the door.
That's a little hard to do when the lab that is going to do the experiments is the one making the suggestion that there was no need for internal controls.
Do you have a citation for the claims of the lab for their 0.077 value?
Yes. But flat out stating it would be officially stating which lab it was.
Your analysis sounds good superficially, but there are two flaws with it. The first is that it assumes that all labs are created equal.
Not an assumption I made so your off base on that point. Different labs use different methods, personnel, equipment, level of expertise of their technicians, ect. Of course all labs are not created equally.
Then why did you use Arnold et al's data (0.25 pMC) instead of, say, Van der Borg et al's data (0.14 pMC) (the more usual value), the stated value of the lab (0.077 pMC), or Byrd et al's data (0.04 pMC)? Because it made your case look better?
Do you really think Baumgarder can justify 3 significant figures?
I'd have to do the calculations, but I doubt it. But now we are getting just silly. I left the third figure in just to keep you from accusing me of rounding it off inaccurately in my favor. People can always round it off on their own.
We don’t even know if the lab subtracted those values or did Baumgardner do it on their own. The manuscript is completely vague and unclear in this issue and there is no means for verification in place.
The manuscript is unequivocal. The lab subtracted "those values" (more precisely, that value) before giving the data to Baumgardner et al. That you could not see it in the manuscript suggests that you did not read carefully the manuscript you are criticizing.
Paul has agreed that the methods used were deplorable and out of the mainstream of how these types of analytical procedures must be conducted for them to have any validity.
And again
we both agree to the fatal nature of the analytical chemistry with this report
No we don't, and here's why. I will agree with you that the data are not ideal, and that in this atmosphere it would have been better to have had internal controls. As a matter of fact, I made some suggestions in that regard. However, experts familiar with the data do not find them fatally flawed. Two of them wrote to Kathleen Hunt (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html --note the creationist website ;) ) In her words,
So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C.
They attribute this to carbon-14 being made underground by neutrons. We'll get to that in my next comment. If the data were worthless, they would probably not be trying to account for the existence of carbon-14 in fossil material. You appear to be arguing that nobody should read the book chapter or the paper, since they are fatally flawed. I am arguing that the data should be approached cautiously, but should be looked at. Readers may decide which approach is more appropriate. You and I will have differing viewpoints. At present, they are probably irreconcilable. What should help to resolve this is more data. I will close this comment by pointing out that science is reproducible. If you don't like their data, show that it is not reproducible. I'll argue on your side then regarding this issue.Paul Giem_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

I don’t see this as leading to a necessary rejecting the claims of finding C14 levels though – just more clarification at the time.
Of course that is exactly what it means, i.e., rejection of C14 levels beyond that contirbuted to the sample processing.
Should I read that to imply, that if those levels are correct, then it means the radioactivity levels at the time of deposit might have then been too high for life to survive?
No. Where (and how) did you ever arrive at such an erroneous conclusion?franklin_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Franklin
Jguy, I hope you have followed these exchanges and now realize why I asked you the questions that I did, i.e., C14 and the RATE data. Paul has agreed that the methods used were deplorable and out of the mainstream of how these types of analytical procedures must be conducted for them to have any validity. The results presented lack any credibility.
Yeah. You guys seem to agree on some point of contention that was beyond my concern or awareness. On which part of RATE this regards, I'm not sure. I don't see this as leading to a necessary rejecting the claims of finding C14 levels though - just more clarification at the time. Would be nice if Baumgardner chimed in on this. BTW: Is this what you guys are talking about? http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Measurable-14C-in-Fossilized-Organic-Materials.pdf I'm moreso waiting for a discussion on the de novo production of C14. Especially regarding - if it were to happen - what would be the implications for surface radioactivity levels. From reading the exchange between you two, you seem to at least be interested in attributing detected C14 levels largely (if not all) to lab errors. Should I read that to imply, that if those levels are correct, then it means the radioactivity levels at the time of deposit might have then been too high for life to survive?JGuy_{November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply