Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Mount st. helens

  1. #1 Mount st. helens 
    Guest
    well here's a new bit a data, apparently according to numerous websites (and creationists! Woo!) mount St. Hellens disproves the accuracy of carbon dating due to its apparent incapability to date the eruption properly. As shown on the following creationist website: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521

    Now since I'm lazy, and would be interested to hear your outlooks, especially explanations on the inaccuracy and alternative methods reported that did show an accurate date (or information related to this), I've posted it here! Woo!

    Now, personally, this comes as no suprise to me. Especially given the type of volcano eruption and results we're talking about here, but using this as a single statement to disprove dating methods is rather annoying. So have at (prove it disproves it or prove it doesn't!).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Our good buddies at talkorigins have this one covered already.

    talk origins response

    Quote Originally Posted by talkorigins
    Response:
    1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
    2.Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
    This is pretty common YEC practice. They apply the wrong tests to the sample (for example, using carbon dating on fossils which are FAR too old to carbon date..) and then cry foul when the results are haywire. Which is exactly what conventional science would expect when you intentionally use the wrong test on the wrong sample. From wiki, on K-AR dating:
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks >100000 years old
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    A problem with K-Ar dating is that if there is heterogeneity in the sample, then the aliquots used for determining K concentrations and 40Ar abundances may have different K/Ar. This can lead to an inaccurate date.
    So at a glance, it seems that not only is this an inappropriate test to use on a sample that's only 20 years old, but the sample isn't homogeneous anyway so that again makes it a poor test.

    It's deceptive, dishonest YEC NONSENSE that unfortunately is very common.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Somebody ban this Christian guy already. All he does is spam this support007 site.

    Anyway.
    I looked into it earlier, and was going to post the obvious that the test requires samples older than 100,000 years, but then realized that the problem is that there was argon in the samples that shouldn't have been there. However, if the samples weren't homogenous, then there you go. That's the problem in a nutshell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    What the hell does that nonsense have to do with anything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The Christian Ban is impending.

    First, I've got to sweep out his garbage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Christian has been thrown to the lions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Word. Well, anyway, I did check the talking origins website before posting this but I was hoping for more alternative answers. Especially since I gave that *exact explanation* to a theist, who instead of looking at the website, called them total liars. And offered that link as *real* and thus *non-lying*. Hence why I was hoping alternative sources would be brought in so I wouldn't have to deal with such ignorance again. Especially since I had trouble *locating* sources with evidence for this event aside from that one website.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Word. Well, anyway, I did check the talking origins website before posting this but I was hoping for more alternative answers. Especially since I gave that *exact explanation* to a theist, who instead of looking at the website, called them total liars. And offered that link as *real* and thus *non-lying*. Hence why I was hoping alternative sources would be brought in so I wouldn't have to deal with such ignorance again. Especially since I had trouble *locating* sources with evidence for this event aside from that one website.
    The thing about talkorigins is that they INCLUDE THEIR REFERENCES. Anyone is free to go check the references themselves, and they are undoubtably credible references. Creationist nonsense rarely has references, and when they do it is generally to more creationist rhetoric - hardly a reputable scientific source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    Though not exactly the same, this creationist stuff reminds me of a quote by George Carlin:

    "If human beings are really the only intelligent life in the universe...then the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." 8)
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert M. Blevins

    "If human beings are really the only intelligent life in the universe...then the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." 8)
    Great quote..I love Carlin.


    Just curious, aren't there carbon-dating tests for things that are less than 100,000 years old? Like they use to date archeological sites and such...or is this a horse of a different color?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Yes, carbon isotope ratios are used for dating. I think 12/13 is for older stuff, and 12/14 might be for younger stuff? Not too sure but I know for a fact that carbon isotope ratios are used for dating things of the order of centuries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    I had a quick look at the article, and his name at the begining. He does not seem to have any letters after his name which indicates to me he is just joe normal - I read no further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    11
    Tests is tests

    Wrong test, wrong result.

    I've blown clinically dead from alcoholic poision at the booze buses.

    When I've rung the police experts in the labs they have just laughed. And then told me that the only thing that the booze bus results allow the cops to do are place you under arrest and haul your ass down to the hospital for a blood test.

    They can TRY to present them in court but a good defence wil have them thrown out.

    Likewise if you test the wrong sample, using the wrong gear, then you wil get the wrong results.
    It doens't men science is wrong. It means that BAD science gives bad results.
    Don't be afraid of asking stupid questions. They are so much easier to handle than stupid mistakes
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •