Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:59:38Z

1 revision

at 07:59, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:59:38Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:39:58Z

1 revision

at 07:39, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:39:58Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:30:16Z

1 revision

at 07:30, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:30:16Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-29T14:28:15Z

1 revision

at 14:28, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T14:28:14Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-29T13:32:43Z

1 revision

at 13:32, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T13:32:43Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Evolution Says|Radiocarbon dating accurately measures the age of plant and animal material. This method proves the evolution of life on earth. }}
 ==The Facts Are ..... ==
@@ Line 39: / Line 38: @@
 ==References==
 <references></references>
-  [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]
+  [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==The Facts Are ..... ==
-(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions
+{{Fact|1}} Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions
 , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
-"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
+<ref>"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31</ref>
-(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
+{{Fact|2}} Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
-(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000
+(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. <ref>Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61</ref>
-years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
+(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. <ref>Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634</ref>
-(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
+(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. <ref>Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+</ref>
-(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
+(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. <ref>Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+</ref>
-(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
+(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. <ref>New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466</ref>
-(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
+{{Fact|3}} Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. <ref>Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10</ref>
- New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
+{{Fact|4}} "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" <ref>in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9</ref>
-(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
+{{Fact|5}} "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. <ref>Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59</ref>
-(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9
+{{Fact|6}} In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
-(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
+"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". <ref>Diggings, August, 1990 p:8</ref>
-(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
+{{Fact|7}} "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." <ref>Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]</ref>
 ==References==
 <references></references>
   [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:59, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:39, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:30, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:28, 29 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:32, 29 May 2014
(No difference)

Radiocarbon Dating - Revision history

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:59, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:39, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 07:30, 30 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 14:28, 29 May 2014

Paul: 1 revision

at 13:32, 29 May 2014