Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Einstein went off on research into unified field theory which mainstream 
ignores, but which some researchers have continued to pursue, and such bodges 
as constancy of lightspeed get updated anyway

see:http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/


also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zF7DZoQgig



Published on Nov 6, 2015Roger J. Anderton, Independent Researcher, UK 

“Modern Applications of Boscovich's Unified Field Theory”
 
Boscovich provided a unified theory of point-particles, and this served as 
basis for modern quantum mechanics. Applications of Boscovich's theory to 
quantum problems, such as to modern chemistry will be considered based on the 
work of Dragoslav Stoiljkovich. The works of Stoiljkovich having not been 
published very much in English, and thus not been more widely known among 
English-speaking scientists. This author is now engaged in translating these 
works in corroboration with Stoiljkovich; works that highlight the modern work 
that is still being pursued based on Boscovich's unified field theory. 

On Monday, 24 October 2016, 11:54, Kevin O'Malley  
wrote:
 

 ​Oops, what I meant to say was that it addresses the 'horizon' problem that 
the inflation theory addresses when even its own proponent is skeptical of it.  
The lambda / missing dark energy is one of the implications that anisotrophy 
generates because it no longer appears that energy is conserved or that the 
laws of physics have always been the same throughout the universe.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

​I just watched a documentary titled "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" which 
postulates that the speed of light is not a constant, as some evidence already 
suggests.  

   https://cosmolearning.org/ documentaries/einsteins- biggest-blunder-853/
The anisotrophy of light is becoming a topic that is no longer taboo in modern 
physics.   Not only does this address the 'flatness problem' but it also 
addresses the lambda / missing dark energy in the universe.   


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

 My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating 
scientific evidence.
***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence.  When 
it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall (mainstream) 
evidence is appropriate for discussion.  

I agree with Jed.  The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion, and 
a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample credence to 
errors & inaccuracies.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C arbon_dating


When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating 
scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult.  Jed accepts the wide range 
of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating.  You, on the other hand, 
seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept.  And that's exactly what 
you're accusing Jed of doing.  Hypocrisy, thy name is jojo.  


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last time I 
checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.     You like to make 
these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a tight spot.  You 
claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,.  Now, you are 
saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't know, how can you say they were 
instrument errors.  How do you know they were imaginary, or fully explicable or 
gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work.  What 
qualifies you to make an assertion like that?  Were you there? You see, the 
problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a belief system you hold 
dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you reject as a lie, an error, 
incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to 
evaluating scientific evidence.   Jojo  
 - Original Message -  From: Jed Rothwell  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon 
Dating 
   Jojo Iznart  wrote:    
   The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of 
wide circulation.
 
 I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying 
these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used 
to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors 
would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when 
the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining 
problems is a good thing. 
   
     Do you think these are all errors?
 
 I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully 
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how 
instruments work. 
   
     Don't you think they would have 

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

​Oops, what I meant to say was that it addresses the 'horizon' problem that
the inflation theory addresses when even its own proponent is skeptical of
it.  The lambda / missing dark energy is one of the implications that
anisotrophy generates because it no longer appears that energy is conserved
or that the laws of physics have always been the same throughout the
universe.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> ​I just watched a documentary titled "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" which
> postulates that the speed of light is not a constant, as some evidence
> already suggests.
>
>
>https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/einsteins-biggest-blunder-853/
>
> The anisotrophy of light is becoming a topic that is no longer taboo in
> modern physics.   Not only does this address the 'flatness problem' but it
> also addresses the lambda / missing dark energy in the universe.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating
>> scientific evidence.
>> ***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence.
>> When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall
>> (mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion.
>>
>> I agree with Jed.  The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for
>> discussion, and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which
>> gives ample credence to errors & inaccuracies.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
>>
>>
>> When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to
>> evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult.  Jed accepts
>> the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating.  You, on
>> the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept.  And
>> that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing.  Hypocrisy, thy name is
>> jojo.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last
>>> time I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.
>>>
>>>
>>> You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself
>>> from a tight spot.  You claim these results are errors, outlier or
>>> instrument errors,.  Now, you are saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't
>>> know, how can you say they were instrument errors.  How do you know they
>>> were imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not
>>> understand how instruments work.  What qualifies you to make an assertion
>>> like that?  Were you there?
>>>
>>> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a
>>> belief system you hold dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you
>>> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better
>>> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>>>
>>> Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper
>>>> of wide circulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
>>> saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
>>> authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on
>>> blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong
>>> readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual
>>> example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Do you think these are all errors?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
>>> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
>>> instruments work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover
>>> them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why
>>> trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give
>>> the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong
>>> leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic
>>> mistakes. To err is human.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are
>>>> just a few I found.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
>>> whether you have found it.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

​I just watched a documentary titled "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" which
postulates that the speed of light is not a constant, as some evidence
already suggests.


   https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/einsteins-biggest-blunder-853/

The anisotrophy of light is becoming a topic that is no longer taboo in
modern physics.   Not only does this address the 'flatness problem' but it
also addresses the lambda / missing dark energy in the universe.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating
> scientific evidence.
> ***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence.
> When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall
> (mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion.
>
> I agree with Jed.  The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion,
> and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample
> credence to errors & inaccuracies.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
>
>
> When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to
> evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult.  Jed accepts
> the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating.  You, on
> the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept.  And
> that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing.  Hypocrisy, thy name is
> jojo.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>> Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last time
>> I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.
>>
>>
>> You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself
>> from a tight spot.  You claim these results are errors, outlier or
>> instrument errors,.  Now, you are saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't
>> know, how can you say they were instrument errors.  How do you know they
>> were imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not
>> understand how instruments work.  What qualifies you to make an assertion
>> like that?  Were you there?
>>
>> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a
>> belief system you hold dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you
>> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better
>> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>>
>> Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper
>>> of wide circulation.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
>> saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
>> authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on
>> blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong
>> readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual
>> example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   Do you think these are all errors?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
>> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
>> instruments work.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover
>> them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why
>> trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give
>> the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong
>> leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic
>> mistakes. To err is human.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are
>>> just a few I found.
>>>
>>
>> You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
>> whether you have found it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

 My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating
scientific evidence.
***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence.
When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall
(mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion.

I agree with Jed.  The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion,
and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample
credence to errors & inaccuracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating


When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to
evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult.  Jed accepts
the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating.  You, on
the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept.  And
that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing.  Hypocrisy, thy name is
jojo.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last
> time I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.
>
>
> You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from
> a tight spot.  You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument
> errors,.  Now, you are saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't know, how
> can you say they were instrument errors.  How do you know they were
> imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not
> understand how instruments work.  What qualifies you to make an assertion
> like that?  Were you there?
>
> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a
> belief system you hold dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you
> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better
> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
>  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>
>>  The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper
>> of wide circulation.
>>
>
> I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
> saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
> authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on
> blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong
> readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual
> example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing.
>
>
>
>>Do you think these are all errors?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
> instruments work.
>
>
>
>>Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing
>> it?
>>
>
> If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them.
> That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why
> trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give
> the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong
> leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic
> mistakes. To err is human.
>
>
>
>
>>  I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are
>> just a few I found.
>>
>
> You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
> whether you have found it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[CB Sites]

Opps I meant C14.  Here is the processes;

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




On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, CB Sites  wrote:

> Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
> dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels.  In fact
> that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man
> made sources.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
>> because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.
>>
>> The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
>> together.
>>
>>  You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon
>> dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like
>> this mean you have just measured background contamination.
>>
>> Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many
>> controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis
>> culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis  was considered outright
>> bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these
>> outliers.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

Like Jed says, " Please stop making ignorant assertions."  At least this is
an interesting ignorant assertion.  The problem with Cold Fusion acceptance
in scientific circles is not due to problems getting results replicated.
It is due to PAST stigma attached to the field of inquiry and current
skeptopathic activity until this generation of "scientists" dies off.

*A new scientific <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Scientific> truth
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Truth> does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light>, but rather because its opponents
eventually die <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death>, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it. ~Max Planck  *


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Jed,
>
> If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so
> much problems convincing the rest of the world.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
>  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>  Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
>>
>
> Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times.
> Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before
> commenting.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Jed,

If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much 
problems convincing the rest of the world.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Jojo Iznart  wrote:


Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.


  Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times. Please 
stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before commenting.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last time I 
checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.   


You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a 
tight spot.  You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,. 
 Now, you are saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't know, how can you say 
they were instrument errors.  How do you know they were imaginary, or fully 
explicable or gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. 
 What qualifies you to make an assertion like that?  Were you there?

You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a belief 
system you hold dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you reject as a 
lie, an error, incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better than Huzienga 
when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Jojo Iznart  wrote:

The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of 
wide circulation.


  I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying 
these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used 
to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors 
would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when 
the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining 
problems is a good thing.



  Do you think these are all errors?


  I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully 
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how 
instruments work.



  Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it?  


  If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them. 
That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains 
sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong 
answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People 
everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err 
is human.




I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just 
a few I found.


  You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge 
whether you have found it.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Thanks for identifying yourself my friend.  I already forgot who it was that 
challenged me and I wasn't inclined to waste my time searching the archives.

You asked for proof of my assertion that radionucleotide dating is unreliable, 
and I provided several actual egregious examples from reputable researchers 
published in reputable peer-reviewed publications.  And yet, your response is: 
These are all outliers and errors and legends.

My friend, You are only willing to accept results that seem right to you.  Any 
other result is an outlier, and error and incompetence automatically.  You 
claim that they are legends with no truth to it, yet they are published in 
publications that you respect.  The problem with your version of "science" is 
that you want to have the right to decide which experimental result is valid.  
Any result you don't like is a mistake, an instrument error or legend.   How 
can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.

Of course these results are well known, and published in creationist web sites 
and elsewhere.  Why?  Because they show the truth that people like you would 
rather bury as an error, outlier or legend, so that you can promote your own 
twisted theories and beliefs.


Your rebutal to my #1 and #2 items seems to illustrate very well my oriignal 
point.  These two links claim that there are other processes that could skew 
the result.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old

Which is precisely my point.  The technique depends on many assumptions many of 
which we do not fully understand.  Hence, results are unreliable.


My friend, you can discuss all you want till you turn blue, all the wiggly 
lines, all the calibration reports, the tree lines, all the expert opinions, 
etc etc  but if you can not explain how these egregious results come about 
from a technique you deem reliable, your argument rings hollow.  Your only 
other option is to claim error, outlier and/or incompetence, which is precisely 
what you and a couple of other folks like Jed is claiming.  You don't like the 
result, it must be an error, an outlier.  How convenient.


Regarding what Moses wrote, if you want to discuss religion, start a new thread.




Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for 
the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating.  It took me some 
time to find it but here are some:
  I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies.  I asked 
specifically for a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe made in the 
1800's dating to 600,000 years ago".  That seemed remarkable as it is very 
difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination could explain it.  
But having also searched in vain for such a report myself, I guess it was just 
a YEC circulated legend after all, with no truth to it.

 1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-63 

2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, 
Sept-Oct `971 p.211

3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 
1984 p58-61
...

  As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem to 
be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on by YECs and 
circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost identical list here: 
http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm)

  However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be bothered to 
look for them.  For instance the living shells dated as old are discussed here:
  
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
  And the freshly killed seal is discussed here:
  
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old

  But I think you don't want evidence.  You would much rather stir up as much 
mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too hard to see any 
pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever and the whole field 
should be tossed out as just so much crap.

  But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will not 
fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years fall within 
a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the wiggly line - which 
on average decays exactly as predicted.  Even the wiggles in the line (which 
are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at those ancient dates) 
can be matched between widely varying deposits of very differe

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Alain Sepeda]

it is also unbelievable that educated people repeat the consesus fairy tale
against cold fusion, despite huge evidences agains, and no valid refutation
to support their cause...
anyway they did because they were the consenus, because opposing mean you
were the blacksheep of the lab, ...

note also that many climate skeptics use bad arguments... we should only
consider the serious arguments, like those pushed by judith curry and
alike... she even worked for IPCC and realizsed she was hiding data to
defend "the cause".climategate and wwhat she read as an insider make her
understand that what she did was the rule and not a local trick. some say
she is a lukewarmer

serious skeptics agree on some warming, but question the cause, because it
have been warming since much longer tha global warming and pausing few
times without credible information.

the exgaggeration, the public myth are recognized even by IPCC and orthodox
even chlarate fear is extremeliy improbable, as extreme weather is not
caused by AGW... model are recoignized as not working, sung is getting
recognized, climate sensibility start to be lowered

note also that experts are useful and often competent, but they can fall in
groupthink as a whole profession.

see the alexander gordon de aberdee, semmeweils, then pasteur tragedy...
in each time the theory was broke, data were ignored, and the solution came
from people out of the domain, but competent wor unexpected reason.




clmim


2014-08-25 20:19 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> I wrote:
>
>
>>   Do you think these are all errors?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
>> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
>> instruments work.
>>
>
> I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have
> spent decades working with these instruments and yet they make mistakes as
> obvious as the ones you describe. This resembles the notion that Martin
> Fleischmann never heard of recombination.
>
> Experts simply do not make the kind of idiotic errors you describe here.
> If you think you have discovered such errors, I am certain you are mistaken
> and you suffer from hubris. No amateur can page through the literature in a
> short time -- as you claimed you have done -- to find that many obvious
> mistakes. I suppose that list came from some misinformed amateur. I have
> seen many similar lists regarding cold fusion in places like Wikipedia.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

Good enough.  Now if I could just get a few million others to accept that I
just won a Nobel Prize, life would be golden.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Email?
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But is it constant across the universe?  Where is it? What is it?
>>>  Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
>>>
>>>  Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that.
>>> 95% leaves a lot left to figure out.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With
 Cosmological Constant
 Date:
 November 28, 2007
 Source:
 Texas A&M University
 Summary:
  Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a
 cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
 from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the
 research of an international team of scientists.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart 
 wrote:

> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. 
> Smart
> guy.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.
>> So... your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley >> > wrote:
>>>
 I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.
 But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is
 reasonably accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M 
 light
 years is 100M years old.

 Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin
 that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for 
 a
 year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that 
 same
 period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that 
 only
 lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan 
 went
 from milliseconds to seconds.

 So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6
 days creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think 
 that He
 is limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly 
 zipped
 around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
 perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting 
 on
 the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
 paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
 amazing.


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
 wrote:

>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors 
> here or
> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
> aggregate.
>
> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something 
> wrong
> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>
> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden
> is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of
> physics that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have 
> been
> generally correlated with Egyptian history.
>
> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could
> demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it 
> would
> radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>


>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

Email?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Yes.
>
> Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> But is it constant across the universe?  Where is it? What is it?
>>  Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
>>
>>  Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that.
>> 95% leaves a lot left to figure out.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With
>>> Cosmological Constant
>>> Date:
>>> November 28, 2007
>>> Source:
>>> Texas A&M University
>>> Summary:
>>>  Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a
>>> cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
>>> from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the
>>> research of an international team of scientists.
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
 missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
 guy.


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.
>>> But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is
>>> reasonably accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M 
>>> light
>>> years is 100M years old.
>>>
>>> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
>>> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a 
>>> year,
>>> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
>>> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that 
>>> only
>>> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan 
>>> went
>>> from milliseconds to seconds.
>>>
>>> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6
>>> days creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that 
>>> He
>>> is limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly 
>>> zipped
>>> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
>>> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
>>> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
>>> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
>>> amazing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
 Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here 
 or
 there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
 radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
 aggregate.

 I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
 different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
 Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
 with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.

 While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden
 is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of
 physics that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been
 generally correlated with Egyptian history.

 Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could
 demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would
 radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.

>>>
>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

Yes.

Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> But is it constant across the universe?  Where is it? What is it?
>  Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
>
>  Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that.
> 95% leaves a lot left to figure out.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With
>> Cosmological Constant
>> Date:
>> November 28, 2007
>> Source:
>> Texas A&M University
>> Summary:
>>  Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a
>> cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
>> from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the
>> research of an international team of scientists.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
>>> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
>>> guy.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
 your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
 wrote:

> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But
>> I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is 
>> reasonably
>> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
>> 100M years old.
>>
>> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
>> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
>> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
>> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that 
>> only
>> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
>> from milliseconds to seconds.
>>
>> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6
>> days creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that 
>> He
>> is limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly 
>> zipped
>> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
>> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
>> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
>> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
>> amazing.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
>>> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here 
>>> or
>>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
>>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
>>> aggregate.
>>>
>>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
>>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
>>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
>>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>>>
>>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is
>>> on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of 
>>> physics
>>> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been 
>>> generally
>>> correlated with Egyptian history.
>>>
>>> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could
>>> demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would
>>> radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

But is it constant across the universe?  Where is it? What is it?
 Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?

 Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95%
leaves a lot left to figure out.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With
> Cosmological Constant
> Date:
> November 28, 2007
> Source:
> Texas A&M University
> Summary:
>  Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a
> cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
> from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the
> research of an international team of scientists.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
>> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
>> guy.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
>>> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But
> I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is 
> reasonably
> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
> 100M years old.
>
> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that 
> only
> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
> from milliseconds to seconds.
>
> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
> creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
> limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
> amazing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
> wrote:
>
>>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
>> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
>> aggregate.
>>
>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>>
>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is
>> on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of 
>> physics
>> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
>> correlated with Egyptian history.
>>
>> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could
>> demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would
>> radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

That must be one smart monkey.  Maybe he and the millions of others banging
on typewriters right now in another thought experiment will find the dark
energy that's missing.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory
>
>
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
>> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
>> guy.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
>>> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But
> I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is 
> reasonably
> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
> 100M years old.
>
> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that 
> only
> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
> from milliseconds to seconds.
>
> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
> creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
> limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
> amazing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
> wrote:
>
>>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
>> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
>> aggregate.
>>
>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>>
>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is
>> on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of 
>> physics
>> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
>> correlated with Egyptian history.
>>
>> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could
>> demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would
>> radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological
Constant
Date:
November 28, 2007
Source:
Texas A&M University
Summary:
 Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a
cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the
research of an international team of scientists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
> guy.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
>> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
 think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
 accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
 100M years old.

 Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
 steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
 comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
 period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only
 lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
 from milliseconds to seconds.

 So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
 creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
 limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
 around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
 perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
 the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
 paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
 amazing.


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
 wrote:

>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
> aggregate.
>
> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>
> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is
> on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of 
> physics
> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
> correlated with Egyptian history.
>
> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate
> a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically 
> upset
> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg




On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart
> guy.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
>> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
 think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
 accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
 100M years old.

 Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
 steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
 comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
 period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only
 lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
 from milliseconds to seconds.

 So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
 creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
 limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
 around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
 perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
 the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
 paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
 amazing.


 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
 wrote:

>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an 
> aggregate.
>
> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>
> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is
> on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of 
> physics
> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
> correlated with Egyptian history.
>
> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate
> a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically 
> upset
> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing
95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So...
> your point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
>>> think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
>>> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
>>> 100M years old.
>>>
>>> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
>>> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
>>> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
>>> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only
>>> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
>>> from milliseconds to seconds.
>>>
>>> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
>>> creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
>>> limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
>>> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
>>> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
>>> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
>>> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
>>> amazing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
 Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
 there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
 radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.

 I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
 different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
 Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
 with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.

 While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on
 Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics
 that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
 correlated with Egyptian history.

 Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate
 a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset
 the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment.  So... your
point is?  You have a problem with Einstein?


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
>> think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
>> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
>> 100M years old.
>>
>> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that
>> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year,
>> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same
>> period.  And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only
>> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went
>> from milliseconds to seconds.
>>
>> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
>> creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
>> limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
>> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
>> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
>> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
>> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
>> amazing.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>>
>>>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio
>>> Dating results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or
>>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that
>>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.
>>>
>>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
>>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
>>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
>>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>>>
>>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on
>>> Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics
>>> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
>>> correlated with Egyptian history.
>>>
>>> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a
>>> convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset
>>> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

Cold fusion has been replicated more than 14,700 times

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg87609.html


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
> Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question
> your ability to make science.
>
>
> 2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>>  Is it because it is repeatable?
>>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
> think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
> accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
> 100M years old.
>
> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that steps
> into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes
> back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period.  And
> this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few
> milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from
> milliseconds to seconds.
>
> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
> creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
> limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
> perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
> amazing.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating
>> results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in
>> various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive
>> decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.
>>
>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>>
>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on
>> Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics
>> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
>> correlated with Egyptian history.
>>
>> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a
>> convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset
>> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that.  But I
think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
accurate.  I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
100M years old.

Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox.  A twin that steps
into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes
back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period.  And
this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few
milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from
milliseconds to seconds.

So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days
creating the heavens & earth.  Do we have any reason to think that He is
limited to going only the speed of light?  Nope.  He undoubtedly zipped
around the universe at far faster than the speed of light.  From His
perspective, it took 6 days.  From the perspective of someone sitting on
the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years.  God's own little twin
paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago.  Pretty
amazing.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating
> results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in
> various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive
> decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.
>
> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in
> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.
> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong
> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith.
>
> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on
> Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics
> that allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally
> correlated with Egyptian history.
>
> Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a
> convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset
> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
>

RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Chris Zell]

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

There are plenty of correlations that have emerged in relation to C-14 dating, 
tree rings, astronomical events, Egyptian history just to name a few.  In 
addition, the variations in C-14 formation have been fleshed out over the 
years.  I think many creationists are using old data and arguments.

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jed Rothwell]

Jojo Iznart  wrote:

 Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
>

Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times.
Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before
commenting.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[jwinter]

On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence 
for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating.  It 
took me some time to find it but here are some:
I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies. I 
asked specifically for a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe 
made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago".  That seemed remarkable 
as it is very difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination 
could explain it.  But having also searched in vain for such a report 
myself, I guess it was just a YEC circulated legend after all, with no 
truth to it.
1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, 
pp634-63
2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 
6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211
3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 
224, 1984 p58-61

...
As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem 
to be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on 
by YECs and circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost 
identical list here: 
http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm)


However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be 
bothered to look for them.  For instance the living shells dated as old 
are discussed here:

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
And the freshly killed seal is discussed here:
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old

But I think you don't want evidence.  You would much rather stir up as 
much mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too 
hard to see any pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever 
and the whole field should be tossed out as just so much crap.


But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will 
not fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years 
fall within a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the 
wiggly line  - 
which on average decays exactly as predicted.  Even the wiggles in the 
line (which are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at 
those ancient dates) can be matched between widely varying deposits of 
very different types and in very distant locations.  As I now understand 
it the starting C14 concentration is known to the exact year.  There are 
multiple complete and independent sequences (ie from Ireland and 
Germany) of tree rings that can be counted back 11,000 years and that 
are mutually consistent.  Counting varves and measuring the radiocarbon 
concentration of the organic sediment layers in Lake Suigetsu have 
allowed the starting C14 concentration to be calibrated back to more 
than 50,000 years (again exact to the year as I understand it).  And 
there is no indication of unusual deposits or gaps around the time of Noah!


In this regard maybe you would like to explain the "GISP2 ice core at 
1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers" that you can see 
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2D1837_crop.jpg. Every 
indication (by counting annual layers) is that this ice formed ~16250 
years ago - again with no evidence of disturbance or melting in a flood. 
Other ice core data 
 
extend this evidence back to ~800,000 years without a significant break.


How can you reduce this stretch of data by a factor of ~200?  Do you 
think they could have had 200 blizzards per year for 4000 years to make 
it look like 800,000 seasonal layers had formed in only 4000 years?



Next!
Something you wrote here 
 that 
didn't really make sense at the time:

... you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the
tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. ... you 
are quibbling about the
exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel)
The problem is that in Exod 34:27-28 it clearly says that Moses did the 
chiselling, whereas in Deut 10:4 it says that God did the chiselling and 
_gave the tablets back_ to Moses.  If as you asserted Moses really did 
the chiselling but God was "writing" - in that he was the author - why 
would God need to _give the tablets back_ to Moses?  Maybe God couldn't 
see that well and so had Moses hand them up to him so that He could take 
a closer look to check for mistakes before handing them back?

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


>   Do you think these are all errors?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
> instruments work.
>

I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have
spent decades working with these instruments and yet they make mistakes as
obvious as the ones you describe. This resembles the notion that Martin
Fleischmann never heard of recombination.

Experts simply do not make the kind of idiotic errors you describe here. If
you think you have discovered such errors, I am certain you are mistaken
and you suffer from hubris. No amateur can page through the literature in a
short time -- as you claimed you have done -- to find that many obvious
mistakes. I suppose that list came from some misinformed amateur. I have
seen many similar lists regarding cold fusion in places like Wikipedia.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jed Rothwell]

Jojo Iznart  wrote:


> The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of
> wide circulation.
>

I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on
blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong
readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual
example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing.



>   Do you think these are all errors?
>

I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
instruments work.



>   Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing
> it?
>

If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them.
That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why
trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give
the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong
leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic
mistakes. To err is human.



> I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are
> just a few I found.
>

You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
whether you have found it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question 
your ability to make science.




  2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

Is it because it is repeatable? 
  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

More assumptions to calibrate an assumption.


Whatever


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html




  2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :



For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they 
were 5,000 years ago? 


  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question
your ability to make science.


2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>  Is it because it is repeatable?
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

And what exactly makes "science" more trustworthy.  Is it because it is 
repeatable? or is it because we can feel it with our senses? or simply because 
it is presumed to be the opposite of religion?  It seems that science now a 
days means anything that is anti-relgion.

To me science is simply the "search for the truth".  Whatever the search leads 
to should be considered.  Science should not exclude a whole class of 
explanations because it is not repeatable or can not be experienced with our 
five senses.  

There are many concepts today that pretend to be science which are not 
repeatable, can not be observed and measured.  Yet, they are science.  I am 
assuming I do not need to elaborate about Charlie's theory.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that the 
Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the Bible 
are more trustful than science.


  2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :



But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can 
educate you.



  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html


2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>
> For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they
> were 5,000 years ago?
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that
the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the
Bible are more trustful than science.

2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>
> But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can
> educate you.
>
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Because they are Interdimensional Beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons.

But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can 
educate you.

There are 2 current prevailing theories of who the aliens are.  One theory says 
these UFO aliens are biological beings from distant star systems travelling to 
us using hyper warp speeds.  (Faster than warp 10, otherwise, they'll never get 
here because of the vast distances.)

The other theory, which was promoted by Jacques Vallee (a non-christian) says 
that there is valid reason to believe that these UFOs are beings from another 
dimension of existence.  These are spiritual beings, demons and other 
interdimensional manifestations.  (let me help you out... google 
"Interdimensional hypothesis")  That would explain for instance how these UFOs 
appear to be incorporeal and shapeshift at will.  Biological beings can not 
shapeshift.  (Oh.. I forgot, yes they can according to Captain Piccard.)



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  And they are aliens because...?




  2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

Genesis 6:1-5

It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing 
a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.


Jojo







  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[CB Sites]

Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels.  In fact
that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man
made sources.



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
> because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.
>
> The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
> together.
>
>  You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon
> dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like
> this mean you have just measured background contamination.
>
> Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many
> controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis
> culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis  was considered outright
> bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these
> outliers.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Oh ... the decay rates are accurate and more or less stable all right.  It's 
the assumptions surrounding this that I have a lot of problems with.

For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 
5,000 years ago?  There is proof that C-14 levels have not reached equilibrium 
in our atmosphere.  C-14 levels are still increasing today.  And they vary from 
year to year, decade to decade based on our suns' temper tantrums.  How can we 
be so confident assuming we understand C-14 levels from 5,000 years ago, when 
we can't even predict the weather 48 hours from now. 

If C-14 levels are lower in the past, it is clear that ages determined using 
Carbon dating would read ages that are older than they should be.  I believe 
the crazy mammoth readings we get should make that abundantly clear.  But for 
some reason, people can't seem to process this simple fact.  

Radionucleotide Dating techniques are inherently unreliable because we do not 
fully understand the validity of our assumptions surrounding this technique.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Zell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:37 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating 
results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in 
various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is 
an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.

  I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different 
dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.  Eventually, I was 
forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay 
rates themselves - to save my faith.   

  While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on 
Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that 
allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated 
with Egyptian history.

  Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a 
convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the 
world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

And they are aliens because...?


2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>  Genesis 6:1-5
>
> It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing
> a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Chris Zell]

I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating 
results.  Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in 
various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is 
an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.

I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different 
dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject.  Eventually, I was 
forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay 
rates themselves - to save my faith.

While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates,  the burden is on 
Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that 
allows for such variability.  I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated 
with Egyptian history.

Actually, if you think about it,  if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a 
convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the 
world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Genesis 6:1-5

It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a 
hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw?



  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw?

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Danny boy, I wanted to respond to this assertion earlier but I was laughing so 
hard, that I had to calm down first before I can respond sensibly.

So, the river is between 0-600,000 years old using K-AR dating.  Well, praise 
mother earth, that is some useful result.  Heck, why do we even need to measure 
its age.  We already know the Earth is between 0 - 4.6 billion years old.

ROTFLMAO 




Jojo

PS:  Seriously man, you're killing me.ROTFLMAO 



  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating




  You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar 
dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement 
just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful 
information, depending on what you want.




  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Jojo, while you are at it, would you tell me what kind of mushroom are you
taking:

"Except that we don't realize that these aliens are not extraterrestrial
BIOLOGICAL beings from another planet.  These ALIENS are aliens to our
dimension.  They are INTERDIMENSIONAL beings of spirits, fallen angels and
demons, controlling our destiny thru their proxy of wicked men composing
the Masonic Order, the Illuminati and other Secret Societies.  The last US
president who tried to oppose them ended with a bullet in his head.

They already know who I am and where I live.  I already have a bull's eye
on my back.  I'd be dead already except that I am not too much of nuisance
yet and more importantly, they can't."


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

Yes ADD. No I do not believe time exists, wives made it up to tell husbands
when they are late.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating
> examples.  Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like
> you just did.
>
> The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently
> unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha
> 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
>
> Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will
> have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years.
>
> An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results.
>
> You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian.
> K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that
> measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's
> useful information, depending on what you want.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
> 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating examples.  
Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like you just did.

The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently 
unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating




  Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have 
an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years. 


  An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results.


  You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar 
dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement 
just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful 
information, depending on what you want.




  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Jed, 

The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide 
circulation.  Do you think these are all errors?  Don't you think they would 
have checked for errors before publishing it?  Your contention that these 
measured dates are errors simply do not make sense.  Every measurement that 
does not fit your preconcieved theory must be an outlier and an instrument 
error.  Only those that fit your theory are valid, hence carbon dating is 
valid.  

I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a 
few I found.  There are hundreds more cases of such faulty readings.  Yet, you 
claim that all these are faulty and instrument errors.  How can one discuss 
science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS?  



Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

I don't believe time exists (we are all just decaying), some at different
rates than others.

But it is good to try and make sense of it all.

On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Stewie,
>
> No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many
> finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand.  How can
> we build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific
> methods?
>
> Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably enough for it to be
> useful; unless one is inclined to claim it is reliable because the data
> fits one's own preconceived theories - ie. Darwinian Evolution.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* ChemE Stewart 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 10:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
> JoJo,
>
> Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
> incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  > wrote:
>
>>  Jojo Iznart > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  It took me some time to find it but here are some:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141,
>>> pp634-637
>>>
>>> 2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6,
>>> Sept-Oct `971 p.211
>>>
>>> 3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224,
>>> 1984 p58-61
>>>
>>
>> You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique.
>> Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I
>> have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees.
>> The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some
>> types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not
>> conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good
>> contact with one another.
>>
>> Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications
>> sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of
>> the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect.
>>
>> This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated
>> before we can be sure they are real.
>>
>>  What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science
>> and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a
>> car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come
>> up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason.
>> You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that
>> because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and
>> we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say
>> that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of
>> hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile
>> speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should
>> drive as fast as they like.
>>
>> The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples,
>> in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works
>> or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful
>> when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have
>> to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an
>> independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have
>> investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar
>> reasons.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will
have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years.

An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results.

You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar
dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that
measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's
useful information, depending on what you want.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

Stewie, 

No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many 
finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand.  How can we 
build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific methods?

Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably enough for it to be 
useful; unless one is inclined to claim it is reliable because the data fits 
one's own preconceived theories - ie. Darwinian Evolution.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  JoJo,


  Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be 
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.



  On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Jojo Iznart  wrote:

  It took me some time to find it but here are some:


  1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, 
pp634-637

  2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, 
Sept-Oct `971 p.211

  3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 
1984 p58-61


You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. 
Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have 
seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The 
Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of 
mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct 
electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with 
one another.



Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications 
sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the 
sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect.



This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated 
before we can be sure they are real.


What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and 
technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use 
of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild 
readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these 
readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments 
sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all 
the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure 
blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not 
say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not 
have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like.


The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in 
the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that 
it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do 
carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some 
samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading 
on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked 
independently by several others, for similar reasons.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

OK, what would be the explanation why different parts of the mammoth would be 
dated so widely differently?   A few hundred years maybe acceptable, but 
thousands of years is ridiculous.  The only explanation is that the technique 
is faulty and unreliable.

The dates are all after 1950s.  So your objection is unwarranted.

I forgot to mention, the last example is dated using K-AR radionucleotides.


The skeleton measurements are not outliers.  All of them dated less than 5000 
years old.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating


  Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 
because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. 


  The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals 
together. 


   You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon 
dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this 
mean you have just measured background contamination. 


  Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many 
controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture 
had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis  was considered outright bullshit. So, 
there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers.




  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[ChemE Stewart]

JoJo,

Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>
>> It took me some time to find it but here are some:
>>
>>
>> 1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141,
>> pp634-637
>>
>> 2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6,
>> Sept-Oct `971 p.211
>>
>> 3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224,
>> 1984 p58-61
>>
>
> You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique.
> Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I
> have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees.
> The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some
> types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not
> conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good
> contact with one another.
>
> Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications
> sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of
> the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect.
>
> This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated
> before we can be sure they are real.
>
> What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and
> technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or
> use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with
> wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore
> these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because
> instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we
> should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say
> that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of
> hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile
> speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should
> drive as fast as they like.
>
> The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in
> the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or
> that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when
> they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to
> run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an
> independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have
> investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar
> reasons.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Daniel Rocha]

Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.

The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
together.

 You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon
dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like
this mean you have just measured background contamination.

Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many
controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis
culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis  was considered outright
bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these
outliers.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jed Rothwell]

Jojo Iznart  wrote:


> It took me some time to find it but here are some:
>
>
> 1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637
>
> 2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6,
> Sept-Oct `971 p.211
>
> 3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224,
> 1984 p58-61
>

You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique.
Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I
have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees.
The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some
types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not
conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good
contact with one another.

Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications
sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of
the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect.

This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated
before we can be sure they are real.

What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and
technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or
use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with
wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore
these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because
instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we
should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say
that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of
hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile
speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should
drive as fast as they like.

The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in
the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or
that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when
they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to
run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an
independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have
investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar
reasons.

- Jed

[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Jojo Iznart]

This is not OT since this is science.

A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the 
inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating.  It took me some time 
to find it but here are some:


1.  Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637

2.  Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, 
Sept-Oct `971 p.211

3.  Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 
p58-61

4.  Vollosovitch Mammoth: one part 29,500 years old, another part 44,000 years 
old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central 
Alaska Geological Survey Professional Paper #62

5.  Dino (frozen baby mammoth): one part 40,000 years old, another part 26,000 
years old, wood around mammoth 9-10,000 years old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary 
Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska Geological Survey 
Professional Paper #62

6.  Fairbanks creek mammoth: lower leg dated 15,380 years old, skin and flesh 
21,300 years old - Harold E. Anthony "Nature's Deep Freeze" Natural History 
Sept 1949 p300

7.  2 mammoths found in Alaska: one was 22,850 years old, the other 16,150 
years old - Robert M. Thorson and R Dale Guthrie :Stratigraphy of the Colorado 
Creek Mammoth locality Alaska" Quaternary Research Vol 37, March 1992 pp214-228

8.  Eleven skeletons of earliest human remains in the western hemisphere all 
dated less than 5000 years old. - R.E. Taylor "Major Revisions in the 
Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry", American Antiquity Vol 50 no. 1, 1985 pp136-140

9  Ngadong river beds dated 300,000 years old plus or minus 300,000 years 
(that's right, the error is the same as the age) - Birdsell. J.B. Human 
Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally 1975) p295


There are many more example but I got tired of typing.

Enjoy looking up the references.

Next!



Jojo