Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

There was no True Cross...the whole story was invented years later.

But I have no doubt that if they ever carbon dated a piece of wood to 33 AD you would be screaming about the wonders of carbon 14 dating because you are a phony, arch.

[tj]

Arch, the critiques that you have listed regarding C14 dating are all well known. The good Dr. Suess is responsible for bringing the ones that I quoted to light nearly a half a century ago. You are correct, they are potential weaknesses in the method.

Nevertheless, trumpeting them about like you are doing is tantamount to me running inside after a picnic shouting "The sky is blue!" with a glazed look in my eye and a little foam on the corners of my mouth.

[Minimalist]

But arch thinks that if there is a 'weakness' or 'disagreement' in any scientific test or theory that means that his stupid-ass bible is then true by default. It's a non sequitur unworthy of serious discussion.

He fully expects a scientific discussion of biblical fairy tales, as if that were possible.

[Guest]

Nevertheless, trumpeting them about like you are doing is tantamount to me running inside after a picnic shouting "The sky is blue!"

i used those, not so much as a trumpet but because i decided not to use any material for my paper so i was left with those weaknessess.

do you have links to this hans suess or his work ?

But I have no doubt that if they ever carbon dated a piece of wood to 33 AD you would be screaming about the wonders of carbon 14 dating because you are a phony, arch.

no, because even if it was dated to 33 a.d. there is no way of knowing if that particualr cross was the one Jesus was crucified upon. i am not a fan of carbon 14 dating no matter if it helps me or not as the weaknessess apply to my side of the argument as well as yours and there would be too many questions raised.

[tj]

do you have links to this hans suess or his work ?

My knowledge of him comes from the arch/anthro professor I had at college. He was one of those types that emphasized how we know what we know as much (and to our chagrin, sometimes more) as what we know. If you put together half as good a warning about C14 as he gave us in class, I'll be duly impressed. A word of caution though: If your intent with your paper is to demonstrate that C14 doesn't give the type of truth that you believe is in the bible, you're way too late.

Here are some of the best links I can locate.
Wikipedia
UCSD repository
Suess effect
More Suess effect

[Minimalist]

This kind of stuff

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html


will be lost on arch who still thinks the sun stood still in the sky.

The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.

Arch hasn't gotten the fact that C14 disposed of the Shroud of Turin.

[Guest]

If your intent with your paper is to demonstrate that C14 doesn't give the type of truth that you believe is in the bible, you're way too late.

no that wasn't my intent as what i have noticed has not been mentioned before, so far. i have done some research into this but not enough yet to see if what i have discovered has been addressed.

Arch hasn't gotten the fact that C14 disposed of the Shroud of Turin

could care less about the shroud of turin--it doesn't impress me

will be lost on arch who still thinks the sun stood still in the sky.

i read that part of the article, wasn't and isn't germane to my point except to support it in that the flaws are in every dating system and can't be truly trusted.

[Minimalist]

So the sun did stand still in the sky? Is that your position????

[Guest]

in my research i came across this interesting site though some would dismiss it without reading it first just because of the source. it does make some very good points on the topic.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14fp.htm

Is that your position????

not worried about that, though even if i explained it you would dismiss it because the sun hasn't stood still since then.

i find a very big problem with c-14 dating and other dating methods because of the assumptions involved with them and when one deconstructs the pro arguments it is easy to see how the dating system cannot be trusted to be accurate or a reliable source of confirmation.

[tj]

If your intent with your paper is to demonstrate that C14 doesn't give the type of truth that you believe is in the bible, you're way too late.

no that wasn't my intent as what i have noticed has not been mentioned before, so far. i have done some research into this but not enough yet to see if what i have discovered has been addressed.

Well I wish you the best of luck with it then and will read whatever you write with both skepticism and interest. Anybody can contribute to science. Brahe and Kepler were both interested, and I'd dare say believers, in astrology for example.

[Minimalist]

Paul A. L. Giem is on the Faculty of Loma Linda University in California.

In the 2000-2001 Medical School Bulletin he was listed as teaching Emergency Medicine.

Is he entitled to his opinion and write whatever he wishes? Absolutely.

What is more enlightening, however, is the Mission Statement of Loma Linda University which includes the line:

Loma Linda University a Seventh Day Adventist Christian health sciences institution seeks to further the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus Christ "to make man whole" by

Educating ethical and proficient Christian health professionals and scholars......yada, yada, yada.....

Like I said, he can write whatever he likes but why is it that you can never seem to find anyone outside your narrow, bible-based, viewpoint to support anything you post?




http://www.llu.edu/apply/medicinebulletin9901.pdf[/quote]

[tj]

in my research i came across this interesting site though some would dismiss it without reading it first just because of the source. it does make some very good points on the topic.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14fp.htm

i find a very big problem with c-14 dating and other dating methods because of the assumptions involved with them and when one deconstructs the pro arguments it is easy to see how the dating system cannot be trusted to be accurate or a reliable source of confirmation.

Despite finding the source distasteful, I read it anyway. For the sake of all, let's look at the assumptions listed on that site.

1. The rate of C-14 decay (half-life) has always been the same.
2. The C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has remained constant.
3. The specimen was in equilibrium with the Biosphere when buried.
4. The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried.
5. Today, we can measure the correct C-14/C-12 ratio in the specimen.

The site finds 1, 3, and 5 to be reasonable assumptions and then hinges its questioning of 4 on 2. The entire argument hinges on 2 being an unreasonable assumption.

Now, let's see if you can trade me academic honesty for academic honesty and consider this rebuttal despite the fact that you will find the source equally distasteful:

The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

link
Now, as I've been saying, the weaknesses that you perceive are well known. It's old hat.

Let's take another look back at the site you have linked.

If it can be assumed that the concentration of Carbon 14 has always been at equilibrium at the same level as it is today, or we are able to produce radiocarbon calibration curves which would determine fluctuations in the C14 Concentration through time; then, we can use this assumption to determine how long ago a specimen was separated from the dynamic Biosphere.

(We will simplify the problem by not using any of the calibration curves. So for the sake of our discussion, we will assume that C14 concentration in the atmosphere has always been the same through time.)

Emphasis added.

Clearly, we can't determine an accurate C14/C12 ratio if we don't know how much C14 there is over the course of time.

You've presented us with an eight page straw man.

[Minimalist]

You've presented us with an eight page straw man.

Welcome to the club, tj.

[tj]

We've secretly replaced the personal attacks normally served in this fine establishment with a cohesive argument. Let's see if Arch notices...

[Minimalist]

It never worked before....I prefer this sort of stuff.