Quote:
Originally Posted by preludespeeder
Since you seem to not listen to logic I will put it in plain quoted english for you.
"Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument."
"Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said."
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Here are some excerpts to address your equilibrium question you posed to me. I suggest you read the whole paper because it address all of the creationist arguments against carbon 14 dating. Good day
"Once again, Dr. Hovind has relied on bad data. If you get your information from a creationist source, you'd better triple-check it! Errors get handed down in the creationist literature like the family jewels!" |
I read the paper. Impressive stuff. If I was to talk to this guy in person, he would destroy me. No doubt, as he would have a great academic advantage.
Before I begin, please understand that I am not about to argue at all cost just to win an argument. I am willing to learn new stuff.
Here is the thing though. It is easy to say that so and so doesn’t have a clue (Dr. Hovind) ,and so forth. In fact, there are anti-Hovind websites, and they have been around for a while. Lots of people truly dislike Dr. Hovind because of what he does. I would like to see this Dave E. Matson debate Dr. Hovind. Not to see him destroyed or anything, just to give the other side a chance for a defence.
Interestingly, Dr. Hovind has had hundreds of debates and never lost one.
Now, there are many references in the paper regarding dates. Here are some examples:
„Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago.“
My question is, how can the tree-ring data give correction table for 8-9K years? The oldest tree documented is around 4,000 years. Remember, there are trees with 2, even 3 rings a year.
Also, how do they know about the C-14 fluctuations as far back as 22,000 years? This is a bold statement, so references would be helpful here.
„Egyptian barley samples have been found which date to 17,000-18,300 years old“
Once again, by what method have they been found to be that old?
Now, I will try to put some logic into the equilibrium argument even though you don’t think I can reason logically
First, I never said that the C-14 equilibrim proves that the Earth is young. And I agree with you as far as: „Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out.“.
The fact is, we’re both biased. But please, try to put yours aside just for a moment and think about this: If the C-14 production in the atmosphere has fluctuated throughout the history, how in the world can anyone accurately measure the age of anything by carbon dating? Would not the C-14 production, which controls the latent amount in the atmosphere have had to be constant through all ages to make an accurate measurement?
If it’s OK, I’ll summarize and rest my case.
1. I do not claim that the inaccuracy of carbon dating proves anything, except that this method is unreliable.
2. The mammoth problem with 16,000 years apart is still valid. Even if the samples did not come from the same animal, is it reasonable to assume that two different animals would end up at the same location, not only horizontally, but vertically (remember, they were frozen in some really thick ice) as well 16,000 years apart?
3. If the C-14 uses Ice cores and the Speleothems method, and is in line with their measurement, this alone proves it innaccurate. There really does not need to be any scientific argument, these two methods are laughable, and proven without a doubt to be wrong.
4. The scientists themselves agree that the C-14 production has not been constant, and this mere fact once again sheds serious doubts on the accuracy of C-14 method.
If you’re ever bored, check out this:
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.
Don’t worry, I would not expect you to buy everything there. But click on downloads, they’re all free, and go to „Lies in the textbooks“. This may shake your faith in the claims of naturalists, not only their infallibility, but also their honesty.
I hope you won’t quit making posts, we can surely talk about a lot more stuff. If nothing else, the perspectives of both of us will broaden.