The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Erik Mesoy]

the obscure scientific phenomenon known as "metabolism"

Ahahahaha. Brilliant.

Well, I suppose it could be considered obscure, since it's something of a black box process. Food goes in, waste comes out, the yucky bits are beneath our dignity to investigate.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I have a question for any Creationists, or anyone for that matter: I can believe,perhaps, that there are carbon-dating tests that give errant results. But despite the frequency with which they are mentioned in Creationist literature, I have never seen a single reference for one that actually happened. Can anyone, anyone at all, show me the data of a penguin dated to 5000 years, or a snail to 3 million, or any of these claims that have been made?

PS I know that carbon-dating can't give a result of 3 million years. I mention it because I have seen Creationist literature that says it did.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd dig up an example of a crazy radiocarbon date for a living organism for you, if it weren't for the fact that creationist nutjobs have made the subject ungoogleable.

 

[Bluemofia]

I have a question for any Creationists, or anyone for that matter: I can believe,perhaps, that there are carbon-dating tests that give errant results. But despite the frequency with which they are mentioned in Creationist literature, I have never seen a single reference for one that actually happened. Can anyone, anyone at all, show me the data of a penguin dated to 5000 years, or a snail to 3 million, or any of these claims that have been made?

PS I know that carbon-dating can't give a result of 3 million years. I mention it because I have seen Creationist literature that says it did.

It can give horrid results, but so can measuring with anything. (Especially in Chemistry. Sig Figs!)

99% of all cases though, give accurate results, even when measured along with a known time irrelevent to carbon dating. For example, the Hawaian Islands have been Uranium dated, and their age matches up with techtonic drift over the hot-spot age wise.

But Creationists cite the other 1% and grossly exagerate it to make the whole process seem incredible to begin with.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Heck, I'd like to see a single cited reference to any of the 1%. I understand how bad results can happen, I would just like to see one.

 

[diablodelmar]

How come live pengiuns are carbon dated to thousands of years?
How come all archeologists only quote Carbon dating if it agrees with their previous reckonings?
How come petrified televisons date millions of years? what a dumb theory.

 

[Bill3000]

How come live pengiuns are carbon dated to thousands of years?
How come all archeologists only quote Carbon dating if it agrees with their previous reckonings?
How come petrified televisons date millions of years? what a dumb theory.

The second argument has already been answered earlier.

As for the first and third ones, because that's when it isn't used. All tools of measurement have their limitational ranges for where their measurements are useful. It's why there is such a thing called "experimental error" - carbon dating is not accurate on contemporary objects or organisms. It's the same reason why you won't use a meter stick to measure the length of a paramecium, or for the radius of the Earth's orbit.

Besides, carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating used.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How come all archeologists only quote Carbon dating if it agrees with their previous reckonings?

How come the sun is green?

How come petrified televisons date millions of years? what a dumb theory.

Petrified televisions? What the heck are you refering to?

Oh, and when will I get a reasonable reference for rickets causing strong bones?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I repeat my request, diablo. Show me an actual documented case of something being incorrectly dated. In fact, it would be nice if you could show that it happens often enough to call into question the reliability of the technique, but I will just settle for one. You can't just claim that they exist, you have to show where they are.

And I don't see what is supposed to be so dumb or silly about the Theory of Evolution. Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than what you are claiming.

 

[ironduck]

I almost thought this was good enough to put in my sig, but nah.. good enough to quote here for more to see though

Did you know that crime and teenage suicide, among other things, has increased by over a thousand percent since 1963 when evolution was introduced? Evolution is dangerous!

 

[diablodelmar]

How come the sun is green?

Petrified televisions? What the heck are you refering to?

Oh, and when will I get a reasonable reference for rickets causing strong bones?

I already told you, they don't!

 

[diablodelmar]

I almost thought this was good enough to put in my sig, but nah.. good enough to quote here for more to see though

Awww please put it in your sig! Let the whole world know either how dumb a) I am or b) evolution is.

 

[diablodelmar]

The second argument has already been answered earlier.

As for the first and third ones, because that's when it isn't used. All tools of measurement have their limitational ranges for where their measurements are useful. It's why there is such a thing called "experimental error" - carbon dating is not accurate on contemporary objects or organisms. It's the same reason why you won't use a meter stick to measure the length of a paramecium, or for the radius of the Earth's orbit.

Besides, carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating used.

Answer the first please again.

Also, if it has its limitations, then how do we know when it is right and wrong!? If it dates a live penguin to thousands of years, then how are we supposed to know if it will date something that is supposedly millions of years old? What on earth are you trying to say?

 

[The Last Conformist]

How many times do we have to tell you that radiocarbon isn't used to date anything that's millions of years old?

 

[diablodelmar]

Ahhhh! thankyou! at last. Then please describe to me, in simple detail, the process which is used. I know it full well, but wish to hear if you say it as well.

 

[The Last Conformist]

As if I've not already told you ...

 

[Bluemofia]

Ahhhh! thankyou! at last. Then please describe to me, in simple detail, the process which is used. I know it full well, but wish to hear if you say it as well.

Argon dating, Uranium dating, etc.

All using radioactive elements the same way we use carbon dating. (just with different elements and different constants)

 

[diablodelmar]

As if I've not already told you ...

Yeah right. You haven't told me.

 

[diablodelmar]

Argon dating, Uranium dating, etc.

All using radioactive elements the same way we use carbon dating. (just with different elements and different constants)

Well, there is a different way besides that. Also, those methods you've described are just as inaccurate as carbon dating.

 

[Dr Tiny]

You can't use radiocarbon dating on something that is alive because the C14 to C13 ratio will be constant as the animal eats more C14. It is only after something dies that you can use it as no more C14 enters the sample but only decays over time as each C14 atom emits a single proton to become N14. Besides the life of an animal is such a short time scale that the radiocarbon dating is simply not accurate, it is like trying to use a metre ruler to measure the length of a single bacteria.

You can't use radiocarbon dating on samples millions of years old as it is only accurate over 50000 years or so, an expert can correct me here. For millions of years you potassium argon dating which is accurate to within a few hundred thousand years...but if you are working on a timescale of millions of years then that is a reasonable rate of error.