The Erotic Apologist wrote: Nipper, here's how tu quoque works:
The Erotric Apologist:"Your god is a figment of your imagination."
Nipper:"That's okay, because you're a figment of my imagination, too."
[/quote]
No ---- you made a mistake. The Erotric Apologist:"Your god is a figment of your imagination." Nipper:"That's okay, because you believe I'm a figment of your imagination."
Last edited by Guest on Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
LittleNipper wrote:No ---- you made a mistake. The Erotric Apologist:"Your god is a figment of your imagination." Nipper:"That's okay, because you believe I'm a figment of your imagination."
Not bad, Nipper. You're one step closer to understanding why tu quoque arguments are a steaming load of bovine scatology.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
LittleNipper wrote:No ---- you made a mistake. The Erotric Apologist:"Your god is a figment of your imagination." Nipper:"That's okay, because you believe I'm a figment of your imagination."
Not bad, Nipper. You're one step closer to understanding why tu quoque arguments are a steaming load of bovine scatology.
Which is why the only honest answer to ---- "Is carbon dating accurate?" Remains ---- "Only to a certain extent."
In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit).
Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful. - See more at: http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-c ... n5LDX.dpuf
LittleNipper wrote: So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
How many are that few? Six?
Because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples.
I think any date pointing before creation is problematic and highly doubtful --- for you.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
LittleNipper wrote: So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
How many are that few? Six?
Because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples.
I think any date pointing before creation is problematic and highly doubtful --- for you.
I understand that 6 thousand is about the honest limit. Also DNA is limited to about the same threshold.
Because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples.
I think any date pointing before creation is problematic and highly doubtful --- for you.
I understand that 6 thousand is about the honest limit. Also DNA is limited to about the same threshold.
"I understand..." No, you don't.
Nipper, you're repeating the mistake you made back when you wanted us to believe that Chinese ideograms--specifically, han(3)dz(4)--supported a literal reading of Genesis. The reason for your mistake is the fact that you've failed to study the issue you're attempting to argue (in this case, carbon 14 dating methodology) and are simply cutting-and-pasting other people's words...whose understanding is little better than your own.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
LittleNipper wrote:I understand that 6 thousand is about the honest limit. Also DNA is limited to about the same threshold.
"I understand..." No, you don't.
Nipper, you're repeating the mistake you made back when you wanted us to believe that Chinese ideograms--specifically, han(3)dz(4)--supported a literal reading of Genesis. The reason for your mistake is the fact that you've failed to study the issue you're attempting to argue (in this case, carbon 14 dating methodology) and are simply cutting-and-pasting other people's words...whose understanding is little better than your own.
Chinese characters began as picture writing. I spoke to a very learned Hindi gentleman who actually described English as a very primitive language. He knew that Chinese began as picture writing and even fully understood that such characters often hold hidden and long forgotten meanings not understood or even realized by most individuals who speak the language in question. As for the article I copied and pasted, It goes against what most students are taught but it is not unscientific or even unreasonable. It simply would not make a Uniformitarian or a evolutionist comfortable because it calls into question such individual's investigations and opinions.
The Erotic Apologist wrote:
