nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 382:
Line 382: + Line 393:
Line 394: + + + + + + +
→T-Rex soft tissue?: Replies to JoshuaZ and Middle Man.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Not at all. To use an analogy which came up earlier- say I have a tap measure that goes out to 10 meters. I can draw it out all the way. So if I measure how much it is drawn out I can get an answer less than 10 meters, or I can get 10 meters an answer which really means at least 10 meters. Similarly, if I get a date of about 60,000 years I know that the object is approximately at least that old. An object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years (this is due to the margin of error being high at the lower end of reliability). In general, carbon dating actually works best with objects that are about 2000 to 25,000 years old. The technique is reliable for a bit outside that range in both directions but the error bars become much larger and the precision of measurement required makes it difficult to perform without more specialized equipment. <small> Note that I haven't worked on C-14 dating related stuff in a while so the numbers I gave above may be slightly off, but they are close to correct </small> [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Not at all. To use an analogy which came up earlier- say I have a tap measure that goes out to 10 meters. I can draw it out all the way. So if I measure how much it is drawn out I can get an answer less than 10 meters, or I can get 10 meters an answer which really means at least 10 meters. Similarly, if I get a date of about 60,000 years I know that the object is approximately at least that old. An object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years (this is due to the margin of error being high at the lower end of reliability). In general, carbon dating actually works best with objects that are about 2000 to 25,000 years old. The technique is reliable for a bit outside that range in both directions but the error bars become much larger and the precision of measurement required makes it difficult to perform without more specialized equipment. <small> Note that I haven't worked on C-14 dating related stuff in a while so the numbers I gave above may be slightly off, but they are close to correct </small> [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That sounds more like a "not quite" than a "not at all", but regardless, you said that an object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years, yet I was quoting something that gave a date of 40,000 years, so it seems that your caveat doesn't apply. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:I'll have to check out that bit about the limits of the research in 1994, but claiming "contamination" simply because a date doesn't suit sounds like special pleading.
:There is no link for the research because CMI did it themselves (not the actual testing; that was done at a commercial laboratory). So that also blows the "corrected recently" possibility. Piltdown man is still cited (occasionally) because it's still true—that is, still true that there was fraud. This present case is not an example of fraud, nor of the researchers getting it wrong, but of evidence that conflicts with the uniformitarian paradigm.
:I'm not questioning that C14 dating is useful when it's used for objects in a date range for which the method has been calibrated (i.e. the last few thousand years). It's beyond that, for both C14 and other methods, where the method is based on assumptions and extrapolations, not calibration, that creationists question it.
:So you are choosing which "unbiased" radiometric date to accept and finding ad hoc explanations to dismiss the other one. Dating's not so infallible after all, is it?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:
==Feathers==
==Feathers==