Speculation re. the "how" of miracles

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Huh. I confess that I am not a scientist. But I got my first degree in physics and went to grad school at Penn State in their physics program. I have made an effort to stay at least reasonably current with physics trends and items of interest. Yet I have never heard of this "huge debate over the accuracy of radio carbon dating". Perhaps you can provide a few links to said "huge debate"?

You are not in the know of carbon dating techniques.

Try googling it https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-samsung&q=debate+carbon+dating&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinoODz-4vUAhWogFQKHZ_8A6oQvwUIGSgA&biw=1280&bih=800#xxri=13

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are not in the know of carbon dating techniques.

Try googling it https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-samsung&q=debate+carbon+dating&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinoODz-4vUAhWogFQKHZ_8A6oQvwUIGSgA&biw=1280&bih=800#xxri=13

You have to do better than that, Rob. I'm perfectly capable of Googling. You are dodging the question. You claim there's some huge debate, yet all your Google search returns are the rants of the ignoranti about the evils of evolution and how carbon dating tells a story with implications they hate, and some scientific types trying to respond rationally to their decidedly non-rational claims. I see no "huge debate". Again, please demonstrate these "huge debates" to me, not a lame Google search.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are not in the know of carbon dating techniques.

Try googling it https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-samsung&q=debate+carbon+dating&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinoODz-4vUAhWogFQKHZ_8A6oQvwUIGSgA&biw=1280&bih=800#xxri=13

Rob,

If you're talking about understanding radioactive decay and methods of studying them, you're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse @Vort of being ignorant on the matter.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Huh. I confess that I am not a scientist. But I got my first degree in physics and went to grad school at Penn State in their physics program. I have made an effort to stay at least reasonably current with physics trends and items of interest. Yet I have never heard of this "huge debate over the accuracy of radio carbon dating". Perhaps you can provide a few links to said "huge debate"?

I do not know what Osborn is thinking, it may be this or it may be something else.

I am not a scientist either, this was learned because, as a historian, we learn a few scientific things occasionally in relation to what we do.

Carbon dating has a very short half life that gets more unstable in it's accuracy the further along you go back.  Anything under 500 years should be considered mostly accurate.  After that the gaps get larger in how accurate or inaccurate it may be. 

When you get to two thousand years ago, we can still use Carbon dating, but you normally want to use something else to back it up.  For example, if you have a scroll that dates to 30 A.D., you can see that it is the same type of scroll used historically, that the item it was found in was an object in the ground where the dirt layers approximate from that date, the language and forms used on it also approximate from that date...etc...etc...etc...

Overall, for most of written history, carbon dating is utilized and considered mostly efficient. (what I mean by this, is when modern day historians or archaeologists use it to date something, not that they used it for most of history).

There are OTHER forms of chemical dating besides Carbon dating which are much more accurate for things that are thousands, millions, and even billions of years old.  I believe one that is particularly well used is argon dating (potassium-argon dating) for things that date into the tens of thousand to the hundreds of thousands of years old.  Beyond that, though I haven't utilized this one, I believe is the uranium-lead dating which can be used for things that are billions of years in age.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JohnsonJones
clarification

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Carbon dating has a very short half life that gets more unstable in it's accuracy the further along you go back.  Anything under 500 years should be considered mostly accurate.  After that the gaps get larger in how accurate or inaccurate it may be. 

Not sure where this idea comes from, but it's incorrect. As long as you have precisely identified the half-life of C₁₄, you can use it to date things back many thousands of years with remarkable precision. Assuming your measurements are accurate and there is no pollution from modern sources (which would tend to make the reading too recent, rather than too old), the only way this method could be faulty is if the rate of decay itself changed through time -- a supposition that has no evidence whatever and that would violate much of what current physics models portray. The models could be wrong, of course; but they've been amazingly robust for decades, in some cases centuries, so it would take some remarkable evidence to overturn them.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

You have to do better than that, Rob. I'm perfectly capable of Googling. You are dodging the question. You claim there's some huge debate, yet all your Google search returns are the rants of the ignoranti about the evils of evolution and how carbon dating tells a story with implications they hate, and some scientific types trying to respond rationally to their decidedly non-rational claims. I see no "huge debate". Again, please demonstrate these "huge debates" to me, not a lame Google search.

Well, it was a nice brief chat with ya. Have a good day.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Rob,

If you're talking about understanding radioactive decay and methods of studying them, you're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse @Vort of being ignorant on the matter.

Vort is playing certain ignorant cards on purpose. Ive been down this road too many times to not take their bait of stupidity.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Vort is playing certain ignorant cards on purpose. Ive been down this road too many times to not take their bait of stupidity.

 

According to the divine law of witnesses - you are on the wrong side of those posting on this LDS forum.  But what concerns me is not that you have a different opinion but that you are disturbed and refuse to offer any alternative.  Here is another thought.  Brigham Young University and it various schools are the only universities that have Apostles of G-d that serve as its board of directors.  And at all the universities that are part of the official Church education system – carbon 14 dating is taught consistently in all classes of science.  And I am not aware of any professor that has officially criticized this stand – including all the professors in the Churches religious departments – that the churches official publications, include institutes, and seminaries.   BTW - I received my training in Mathematics and Physics at Brigham Young University of Provo Utah.

I just wonder why you have taken it upon yourself to oppose carbon 14 dating when even Apostles of G-d have not - at least that I know of.  I am not saying you are wrong – I just want to know what you have determined to be a better age dating method of organic matter?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

According to the divine law of witnesses - you are on the wrong side of those posting on this LDS forum.  But what concerns me is not that you have a different opinion but that you are disturbed and refuse to offer any alternative.  Here is another thought.  Brigham Young University and it various schools are the only universities that have Apostles of G-d that serve as its board of directors.  And at all the universities that are part of the official Church education system – carbon 14 dating is taught consistently in all classes of science.  And I am not aware of any professor that has officially criticized this stand – including all the professors in the Churches religious departments – that the churches official publications, include institutes, and seminaries.   BTW - I received my training in Mathematics and Physics at Brigham Young University of Provo Utah.

I just wonder why you have taken it upon yourself to oppose carbon 14 dating when even Apostles of G-d have not - at least that I know of.  I am not saying you are wrong – I just want to know what you have determined to be a better age dating method of organic matter?

 

The Traveler

I never said there was a better dating method. You are missing the whole point. And dont use the BYU card either.

My whole point is that we do not have a reliable dating method to date the kind of stuff we are talking about. Whether they existed or not at a certain time is not something we "know" as if its empirical, its not, Its a belief. Thats all.

[Guest]

On 5/26/2017 at 4:34 PM, Traveler said:

And at all the universities that are part of the official Church education system – carbon 14 dating is taught consistently in all classes of science.  And I am not aware of any professor that has officially criticized this stand – including all the professors in the Churches religious departments – that the churches official publications, include institutes, and seminaries.  

Incorrect.  Several religion professors who taught my classes made statement ridiculing the idea that carbon dating is in any way accurate.  I raised an eyebrow, but I realized I wouldn't get anywhere by saying anything.

[Guest]

On 5/26/2017 at 5:48 PM, Rob Osborn said:

My whole point is that we do not have a reliable dating method to date the kind of stuff we are talking about. Whether they existed or not at a certain time is not something we "know" as if its empirical, its not, Its a belief. Thats all.

 <=== Rob

Edited May 28, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:48 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I never said there was a better dating method. You are missing the whole point. And dont use the BYU card either.

My whole point is that we do not have a reliable dating method to date the kind of stuff we are talking about. Whether they existed or not at a certain time is not something we "know" as if its empirical, its not, Its a belief. Thats all.

 

This post confuses me – if you do not know what is reliable – how can you say any particular thing is unreliable?  For example, if someone said that some man-made article is 2000 years old – unless you know, a witness is not true you cannot say it is false and if you do not know what is true you cannot say anything is false.  You can say that you doubt or do not believe and maybe that is all you are saying but that to me is very shallow and not a witness of truth.  I find it shallow because almost every doubter I have encountered of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, current priesthood leaders or various principles of the Great Plan of Salvation use the exact same tactic.   They are unwilling to consider the preponderance of evidence but fully accept the slightest or smallest criticism from someone however obscure and regardless of the prejudice of the source of opposition.

For me – if someone does not know the truth then their opinion is not valid.  This comes from my upbringing.  My father taught that me that if I desire to study mathematics – do not try to learn mathematics from someone that cannot do mathematics but rather find the very best most reliable source I can.  This principle applies to balancing a budget, getting along with people, or seeing a physician to solve a medical issue or a counselor for a personal issue.  And most certainly, I have learned not to trust the opinion of someone that does not believe a solution is even possible.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

This post confuses me – if you do not know what is reliable – how can you say any particular thing is unreliable?  For example, if someone said that some man-made article is 2000 years old – unless you know, a witness is not true you cannot say it is false and if you do not know what is true you cannot say anything is false.  You can say that you doubt or do not believe and maybe that is all you are saying but that to me is very shallow and not a witness of truth.  I find it shallow because almost every doubter I have encountered of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, current priesthood leaders or various principles of the Great Plan of Salvation use the exact same tactic.   They are unwilling to consider the preponderance of evidence but fully accept the slightest or smallest criticism from someone however obscure and regardless of the prejudice of the source of opposition.

For me – if someone does not know the truth then their opinion is not valid.  This comes from my upbringing.  My father taught that me that if I desire to study mathematics – do not try to learn mathematics from someone that cannot do mathematics but rather find the very best most reliable source I can.  This principle applies to balancing a budget, getting along with people, or seeing a physician to solve a medical issue or a counselor for a personal issue.  And most certainly, I have learned not to trust the opinion of someone that does not believe a solution is even possible.

 

The Traveler

Then by your own standard, as I will use it, your opinion concerning the timing and age of Neanderthal man is not valid.

 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Then by your own standard, as I will use it, your opinion concerning the timing and age of Neanderthal man is not valid.

 

 

Please be honest - carbon 14 is not my standard.  It may be a standard I use until something better is offered.  If you misrepresent me again I will report your post.  I believe you are welcome to define your own opinion - but I reserve the right to my own.

 

The Traveler

Edited May 29, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Please be honest - carbon 14 is not my standard.  It may be a standard I use until something better is offered.  If you misrepresent me again I will report your post.  I believe you are welcome to define your own opinion - but I reserve the right to my own.

 

The Traveler

Misrepresent?

It is your "opinion" that Neanderthal man lived tens of thousands of years before modern man isnt it?

[eddified]

Well, there is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates

A couple of direct quotes from the article:

Quote

Calibration is needed because the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio, which is a key element in calculating radiocarbon ages, has not been constant historically.

This second one is from a graph image; note that separate calibration curves are needed per hemisphere:

Quote

The Northern hemisphere curve from INTCAL13. As of 2014 this is the most recent version of the standard calibration curve. There are separate graphs for the southern hemisphere and for calibration of marine data.