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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> 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
