What is Intelligent Design?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

April 6, 2015

Intelligent Design, News}

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

It is always good to go back to basics every once in a while. This piece is a short introduction to Intelligent Design for those reading about it or studying it.

Read More.

Comments

Andre
I hope that since it is on record from Dr Kirk Bertsche himself that your cite is bogus on the grounds of its biased nature, you will hopefully in future refrain from using Talk Origins as a trusted source of information.
That is really funny and made my day, Andre. In order for what you state to be true Dr Kirk Bertsche would have to think that a citation of his article is bogus. From what he states he doesn't believe that at all and nor should he. In this regard TO has proven to be a very reliable source of information given what Dr Kirk Bertsche has posted. Andre
I also won’t mind an apology but it is certainly not required.
that is even funnier than the first part of your post. What am I to apologize for? An accurate portrayal of The RATE project's data and interpretations perhaps? Andre, you do realize that Dr Kirk Bertsche has reenforced every point I made about the RATE project's data pertaining to what it does and does not show? He (Dr Kirk Bertsche) also underscores the shoddy nature of the RATE project's data and interpretations which I pointed out as well. Perhaps the intellectually honest thing to do on your part is to acknowledge (with an apology as well) that what I posted was an accurate portrayal of the topic, i.e., RATE project C14 data.franklin_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Yes, I’m having a little fun, but you’re missing my point. Had Michaelson and Morley been presented with the theory of dark matter instead, what would their experiment have demonstrated?
It's a different sutuation altogether. The aether was the postulated mechanical medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Its existence was predicted by the then-prevailing theory of electromagnetism, and the purpose of the experiment was to detect its presence. Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally, and remains unexplained. There are several competing hypotheses as to its nature, but there's too little evidence to choose among them, and no solid "dark matter theory". Quite possibly there are more than one kinds of dark matter.
That’s why I asked you whether you believe in dark matter. ;-)
There are good reasons to accept its existence. It has mass and interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter. I can't say I "believe" in any particular explanation what it is. I'll wait for more data.Piotr_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Franklin
I am inclined to agree with Andre’s opinion of TalkOrigins (TO):
I hope that since it is on record from Dr Kirk Bertsche himself that your cite is bogus on the grounds of its biased nature, you will hopefully in future refrain from using Talk Origins as a trusted source of information. I also won't mind an apology but it is certainly not required.Andre_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Dr Kirk Bertsche Thank you for acknowledging my point. I hope you don't take it personally when I talk about the importance of not just believing what any expert has to say unless there is some external and hopefully non-bias verification of what was said. Regards AndreAndre_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

In my paper I wrote:
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.
To which Paul Giem responded:
The first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up. The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way. The “absolutely no evidence” canard has been discussed on this blog before.
My first sentence follows from my view that RATE is proposing a "radiocarbon of the gaps" theory, where anomalously high radiocarbon measurements are attributed to "intrinsic radiocarbon", rather than trying to understand what physical process caused the anomaly. And in analogy to a "God of the gaps" who shrinks as science expands, I believe that this "radiocarbon of the gaps" will shrink as radiocarbon contamination mechanisms become better understood. You may read my first sentence as my own opinion or prediction, if you wish. But I want to explain my second sentence, which you may be misinterpreting. For most radiocarbon measurements, we don't have any "excess" radiocarbon that we need to explain. Everything is consistent with known, characterized instrument backgrounds and process contamination. Thus most measurements don't provide evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon. Shell, coal, and bone are more problematic, but even many of these samples have no excess radiocarbon to explain, and no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon. My point is that MOST radiocarbon measurements provide NO evidence for RATE's hypothesized "intrinsic radiocarbon". If the "intrinsic radiocarbon" hypothesis were true, I would expect it to show a roughly constant radiocarbon background level for all samples. But this is not what we see. --Kirk Bertschekbertsche_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Paul, you wrote:
So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless. That being the case, he has only 3 options: 1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained, 2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or 3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age. He went with door #1. Note that he does not give any evidence for this. He simply considers nuclear synthesis inadequate, and doesn’t believe in short age, leaving his only option contamination before the samples got to the lab. He doesn’t really have any positive evidence for this.
I thought that I explained this in my paper, but perhaps my explanation was unclear. I probably explained it a bit better in an interview that I did for Stephen Meyers of IBSS, which you can find near the bottom of this page: (http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/ageofearth.htm) The RATE coal data shows a large range of radiocarbon concentrations, with nearly a factor of five variation from the highest to the lowest. Each measurement has a fairly small error bar, such that the highest and lowest values do not overlap. This means that the variation in radiocarbon concentrations is real. What could cause such a large, apparently random variation in concentrations? This is quite consistent with contamination. Contamination normally affects samples semi-randomly; some samples are hardly affected at all, while other samples have much higher contamination. But a large, apparently random variation is NOT what one would expect from "intrinsic radiocarbon". We would expect "intrinsic radiocarbon" to give about the same concentration for each sample, within error bars. Thus I conclude that RATE's own data suggests that their coal samples were contaminated with foreign radiocarbon. --Kirk Bertschekbertsche_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Piotr, Yes, I'm having a little fun, but you're missing my point. Had Michaelson and Morley been presented with the theory of dark matter instead, what would their experiment have demonstrated? That's why I asked you whether you believe in dark matter. ;-) -QQuerius_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Querius
Yes, Piotr. Michaelson and Morley disproved the existence of an hypothesized “ether,” a virtually undetectable and unknown substance that permeates space. Sorta like dark matter. Do you believe in dark matter?
Don't be silly, Querius: dark matter is a mystery and the luminiferous aether was a mystery, so maybe they are the same mystery? The whole point about the aether is that it had well-defined postulated properties, so that the aether theory made falsifiable predictions (and was experimentally falsified). No such medium exists, and if something else permeates the Universe, it's other stuff. BTW, neither the aether nor dark matter is supposed to be "undetectable". It may not be directly observable, but that's a different property.Piotr_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Kirk,
I tried to be as objective as possible in this paper, to leave out any ad-hominem attacks or speculations, and to focus on discussing the data.
Thank you. It sounds like this will result in a meaningful exchange of ideas and issues. I'll read it tomorrow. -QQuerius_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

I am inclined to agree with Andre's opinion of TalkOrigins (TO):
Franklin I want to bring this to your attention. The source you cited is bias…. Why? http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....nists.html A supposed scientific website giving you pointers on how to debate Creationists. What’s up with that mate? Your source can be dismissed as nonsense.
My analysis of RATE's radiocarbon claims was first submitted to the ASA website (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm), since I am an ASA member (as is Bill Dembski, BTW). It was then submitted to RTB's website (http://www.reasons.org/articles/rate-s-radiocarbon-intrinsic-or-contamination), since I am an RTB apologist and an officer in the San Jose RTB chapter. A few months later I agreed to submit it to TO after repeated requests and encouragement to do so by a TO member. At the time, the one rebuttal of RATE's radiocarbon claims on TO was weak and misdirected. I thought that my paper may be helpful to TO readers, even though I definitely do not share the agenda of most contributors to TO. I encourage all of you who are interested in RATE's radiocarbon claims to read my paper carefully. A very careful, very detail-oriented friend (a strong YEC, by the way) helped me edit and re-edit it. I tried to be as objective as possible in this paper, to leave out any ad-hominem attacks or speculations, and to focus on discussing the data. The result is fairly carefully worded but is somewhat densely written. I'd be glad to try to clarify or explain my claims or my wording if necessary. (However, I won't have much time to post here, so don't interpret a slow response from me as meaning that I can't answer your questions.) --Kirk Bertschekbertsche_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

franklin:
the data are worthless precisely because we have no idea what the final values for the data would be
lolMung_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Yes, Piotr. Michaelson and Morley disproved the existence of an hypothesized "ether," a virtually undetectable and unknown substance that permeates space. Sorta like dark matter. Do you believe in dark matter? People who actually perform C-14 tests carefully "calibrate" their results based on other data. I understand that C-14 used irresponsibly can sometimes produce highly embarrassing results: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html The work on finding (or massaging) data in support of anthropogenic global warming is an even better example! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html Science is in the best of hands! Gosh, maybe I should consider opening a Data Massage Parlor for unruly evidence. I just need to find a good name for it and I can get Rich! ;-) -QQuerius_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

There’s a type of rationalization that endows a possibility with the power to refute.
Bertsche: 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.
Several eyewitnesses place my client at the scene of the crime, however there is (as per usual) the possibility that they are all mistaken. Therefor your Honor, there is absolutely no evidence against my client.Box_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Querius,
1. Employ a method that’s widely recognized as valid.
Recognised as valid because it has been tested. We know its limits and possible sources of error, so that care can be taken to rule out flawed data.
2. Encounter some anomalous data. 3. Look for plausible explanations to stave off critics.
If the data are properly monitored for quality and still anomalous, they will for a serious explanation. If the procedure doesn't guarantee that the data are not garbage, who cares if they are anomalous? Michelson & Morley's "anomalous data" contributed to overturning 19th-century physics because the experiment was extremely careful and could be replicated many times with increasing sensitivity, giving the same results. A sloppy study doesn't call for much rethinking (except on the authors' part, if they want to try again with more attention to detail).
4. Devise a test for a condition that results in similar anomalous data. 5. Attribute this condition to your anomalous data. For example, the samples musta been contaminated!
See the description of any serious test of radiocarbon dating to learn what controls are used and what precautions are routinely taken. It's the authors' duty to demonstrate that contamination was ruled out, not the critics' duty to prove the opposite.Piotr_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

There's a type of rationalization that obliterates dissonant data in the following manner regardless of the area of inquiry. It goes like this: 1. Employ a method that's widely recognized as valid. 2. Encounter some anomalous data. 3. Look for plausible explanations to stave off critics. 4. Devise a test for a condition that results in similar anomalous data. 5. Attribute this condition to your anomalous data. For example, the samples musta been contaminated! This process not only provides a convenient way out of embarrassments, but can also be extended to change data on the strength of choosing which of several conditions to apply. With this method, data can be groomed, sculpted, and molded to one's theories. Who cares, just as long as it's not discovered for a long time, and it's for a noble cause. Right? -QQuerius_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

PG
While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something.
the data are worthless precisely because we have no idea what the final values for the data would be since the proper controls are lacking for this run of samples. Anything of value is purely speculative on your part. PG<blockquote.While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something. the data would be accepted nowhere in the field of AMS C14 analytical chemistry. PG<blockquote.The first sentence is one that I would agree with. Apparently Bertsche thinks that Baumgardner et al. are trying to do something worthwhile. If I read correctly, he just doesn’t believe they have succeeded. I would agree as well with the first sentence and attempting to do science is fine but when it is pointed out that you've fallen on your face because of shoddy work you just don't continue to forge ahead but rather backtrack and get it right. Just because you paid to have some samples run does not mean they have any value to science. I also would agree that they have not succeeded in any form. PG
Note what is not said: The RATE coal samples were probably not explainable by contamination by sample chemistry; that is, the carbon-14 measurements in those samples were real.
Tjhere is no doubt some sample chemistry contamination but the main point is we have no idea what the extent of this contamination is in these samples. Of course all numbers generated in AMS C14 analysis are real the question is how were they generated. In this case we have not only Kirk's opinion but the technician analyzing the sample believing that the values represent in situ contamination which may come from multiple sources. PG
So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless.
nowhere does Kirk state that supports the measurements at all and he gives a detailed account of the problems associated with the analysis of the coal samples and explains why the data are better explained by contamination....through known and recognized mechanisms. He does think he data are worthless for the reasons he outlines in his article. PG<blockquote.1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained, 2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or 3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age.</blockquote. your 1 and 2 are identical and 2 is just one method of in situ contamination among many. There is no support at all for any 'intrinsic C14' presence in the samples analyzed. There is, however, a host of reasons to suspect shoddy work with the resultant data that was generated being worthless. PG
I agree that it raises more questions, but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. That means we have more to research.
The principle question raised is 'Why would anyone ever try to get away with such shenanigans in an analytical chemistry method'? Yes, the samples need to be re-analyzed using proper analytical techniques....start over and try to get it right this time! PG
The first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up.
There is an abundance of data to support that premise. PG
The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way.
We have no idea if the RATE data is borderline or not. To classify it as such would require that the analytical procedures be followed and inclusive of contamination characterization. Paul, you I, or anyone else can say what the 'true' values would have been since the decision to omit sample process controls negate that determination. PG
This is one area where I mostly agree with Bertsche; much of the data is not provably different from zero, and I think that although Baumgardner et al. may prove to be right in the end, there is not enough data to prove they are right now.
yes that is what the data and flawed methodology suggest. There is no data to suggest the Baumgardner et. al. are even in the ballpark. PG
I believe that while Baumgardner et al. may have overstated their case, and while you may be right about the lack of an ideal situation </blockquote. I may be right about this not being an ideal situation....how disengenuous of you given your previous admissions on the flaws in the RATE project study.. There is no question that the lack of proper controls is 'not an ideal situation'. PG
I agree with Bertsche (your authority) that the coal data are not negligible, or the result of laboratory contamination.
But you disregard the possibility of in situ contamination? How do you do justify that stance? PG
But as I noted above, we’ve been through this before. Why do you want to make the same refuted claims again, as if the subject were fresh?
Yes we have been through this before but if you have read the thread you'll see I did not bring the topic up. You haven't refuted anything I have stated but you have lent support for my statements of flawed data collection on the RATE project's part.
franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I inadvertently omitted the references: "franklin, "We’ve been through this before.Paul Giem_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

franklin, We've been through this before. Your chief point seems to be that proper controls were not used, and so Baumgardner's data were worthless. I pointed out that
While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something. You obviously disagree. The question is, is there a more authoritative source that can solve this problem? According to your #76, there just might be. You appear to respect the authority of Dr. Kirk Bertsche, as in both #58 and #76 you say,
Dr. Bertsche 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.
(your emphasis both times), and you quote the abstract of his paper. Let's look at that abstract. I won't quote every word, but you can point out if I missed anything important. (I will omit your bolding).
Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work.
The first sentence is one that I would agree with. Apparently Bertsche thinks that Baumgardner et al. are trying to do something worthwhile. If I read correctly, he just doesn't believe they have succeeded.
The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry.
Note what is not said: The RATE coal samples were probably not explainable by contamination by sample chemistry; that is, the carbon-14 measurements in those samples were real. Lest one think that I am overreading the situation, one can look at the article, where Bertsche says,
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 a little later
Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.
(Thanks, Box (#79) for bringing those quotes forward.) So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless. That being the case, he has only 3 options: 1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained, 2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or 3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age. He went with door #1. Note that he does not give any evidence for this. He simply considers nuclear synthesis inadequate, and doesn't believe in short age, leaving his only option contamination before the samples got to the lab. He doesn't really have any positive evidence for this.
While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to“intrinsic radiocarbon” raises more questions than it answers.
I agree that it raises more questions, but I don't think that's such a bad thing. That means we have more to research.
“Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory.
I have to laugh. Basically if it doesn't fit into one of Bertsche's theories, then it is radiocarbon-of-the-gaps. Never mind that this particular gap was predicted based on a positive theory. This is a little like arguing against germ theory by arguing that surrendering to that theory is a puerperal fever of the gaps. Semmelweis didn't have positive evidence for his theory, but he was right. In fact, every scientific theory can be characterized by its detractors as a theory of the gaps. Give it up!
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 first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up. The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way. The "absolutely no evidence" canard has been discussed on this blog before.
The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”
This is one area where I mostly agree with Bertsche; much of the data is not provably different from zero, and I think that although Baumgardner et al. may prove to be right in the end, there is not enough data to prove they are right now. I would tend to make the weaker claim that carbon-14 levels in some fossil material are provably different from zero. I believe that while Baumgardner et al. may have overstated their case, and while you may be right about the lack of an ideal situation here, I agree with Bertsche (your authority) that the coal data are not negligible, or the result of laboratory contamination. But as I noted above, we've been through this before. Why do you want to make the same refuted claims again, as if the subject were fresh? Stay tuned for part 2.Paul Giem_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 99 Sorry, missed that post. As an IT guy most of my day is dealing with the result of spam and infected PC's. CheersCross_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Cross, right. Cf 44 above. KFkairosfocus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

lack of Focus @ 97 There is software that mines email addresses from sites, you open yourself up to a lot of spam or worse. Some tips to hiding your address: "To "fool" email harvesters, a simple method is to convert the symbols in an email address to words (typically parenthesized). For example, steve@mac.com becomes steve (at) mac (dot) com. Since this is not recognized as a valid email format, harvesters tend to ignore it." CheersCross_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

KF, why shouldn't AS provide an email address?lack of Focus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

AS, I would not advise publishing an email address, as I said to JB earlier. KFkairosfocus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Piotr
ough indeed. Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic carbon. You’d have to assume that many remains of living things (including humans and traces of their activity, e.g. charcoal from human-made fires) are much older than the Earth.
Indeed! t seems that Andre should have put some thought into his thought experiment before posting it.franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Andre:
I’m going to do a tough experiment. What if the earth is only 6000 years old but the materials used are much older. How does carbon dating work for you then?
Tough indeed. Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic carbon. You'd have to assume that many remains of living things (including humans and traces of their activity, e.g. charcoal from human-made fires) are much older than the Earth.Piotr_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Andre
Before you spill some of that frothing on my screen apologies….
Your projection is duly noted!franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

The 14C/C ratio, measured as percent modern carbon (pMC) is what the labs actually measure, and the standard deviations are actually measured in those terms. The radiocarbon date can be calculated by the formula Date = 5568 years * log2 (100% / pMC), which can be done on most i-phones now. Dates may be more familiar to you, but the pMC is more basic, and they are easily interconvertable.
The table gives the pMC values but since we are close to the maximum age limit (the very highest values in the table correspond to a conventional date of about 40,000 BP), proper controls are really important. Were process blanks used in measuring the pMC, or was some "standard background" value assumed? The difference is important for very old samples, where differences between very small numbers are measured. Total error estimation is not a straightforward calculation (unless the only contribution taken into account is the standard deviation of Poisson statistics), and different laboratories handle it differently. It's always nicer to see properly cited results (including a BP date with an error term for +/-sigma, which will be strongly asymmetrical for old samples). The laboratory reference number should be given whenever the result is quoted, by the way. In any case the table suggests ages in the range of 40,000-74,000 BP, that is close to, at, or beyond the upper limit of the radiocarbon method (= "practically infinite"). Certainly nothing remotely compatible with the traditional (short) Biblical chronology. When done correctly, similar measurements (testing the reliability and limitations of the technique) yield results like these: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/3802/3227 No big surprises there, I'm afraid.Piotr_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Franklin I'm going to do a though experiment. What if the earth is only 6000 years old but the materials used are much older. How does carbon dating work for you then how can any measure of the age of the earth be reliable? Now do the reverse the earth is old but all material is only 6000 years old. Give it a thought. Nobody can reliably date any of this and you know it as well as I doAndre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Andre
I am not siding with anyone and I’m also not condemning anyone
My question is a very generic question that applies to any analytical chemistry method. How would the lack of proper analytical controls affect any quantitative chemical analysis? Andfre
I answered you already when I said more information is needed
the read the RATE manuscripts where they clearly outline the omission of analytical controls (to characterize contamination) and instead decided to use control values generated years in the past.. The RATE manuscripts document all of this which is no doubt they chose not to try and publish in any reputable journal realizing that it was a fatal flaw and would generate instant rejection. Andre
I said more non bias data is needed
the read the published literature surrounding AMS C14 analysis and see if anywhere in there is an advocacy for not including sample process controls. Andre
I said more non bias data is needed
such as?franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Franklin Before you spill some of that frothing on my screen apologies.... Fitness cares not for truth.... You can stop foaming now tiger.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply