• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

oldest stone tools found

Corb said:
I understood carbon dating to be a tool used to prove or disprove theories.
Maybe I was wrong, but I still understand that it is not a theory the way it was presented in the post I replied too.
As we all know creationists usually use the word theory [in science discussions] when in fact what they actually mean is hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Theory = hypothesis.

Evidence proves accuracy or fitness

It's the scientific method

I realize theists want to jump on the words "theory" and "hypothesis" and make it seem like there is doubt about the supporting science. And this can rattle some "sciencey" people. The same as when theists get rattled because their is no proof of an otherworldly presence. The best answer to give them is the I've already stated. Yes, they are absolutely correct. Science does is not meant to be finite. It doesn't have a neat beginning and end. The theories of science are always up for debate and test. And as new evidence is uncovered science allows for the picture to shift. Of course it does. That's what it's all about.

The theists want to convince everyone, particularly themselves, that this somehow makes science inferior to faith. That faith is "solid" and "fundamental" and science is "nebulous" and "ethereal". The very best response is, "Yeah, I already know that. And I'm completely comfortable being uncomfortable in the unknown. Even when it scares me into a pucker event. I'd rather float along in uncertainty with only science/reason to guide me rather than tell myself a lie in order to create the facade of stability."
 
Junkie said:
The sources I'm reading indicate radiocarbon dating is good for up to 50,000 years or so... that's nowhere near the 3.3M the stones are claimed to be. A different article claims they were dated based on the volcanic ash that surrounds them, but doesn't give the dating method. It may be due to some other radioisotope, but it doesn't appear to be 14C.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Your comment got me looking at the paper, and they are doing 13c dating. Less precision, higher sensitivity than 14c dating.
 
CoorsLight said:
Well, carbon dating is not a theory, a law, or anything like that. It is a technique based on the predictable decay of carbon 14. The predictability of the decay rate is based on the laws of quantum chemical physics.

It should be noted that there are large error bars in carbon dating, mostly due to the non-constant abundance of 14C in the atmosphere at different times in Earth's history. Much work over several decades has been put into "calibrating" carbon dating results to tighten up the error. The fact that there is error, however, does not demote the laws governing 14C decay to "theory," nor does it redefine a technique as "theory." Techniques by definition are not theories, and will only be defined as such by those who do not care to understand science or its methodologies.

The dating error in this study would have to be around half a million years or more to substantially change the authors' conclusions. These researchers were working on the ragged edge of what the technique can deliver, so their error was likely much higher than typical 14C dating, but not 0.5M years higher. Additionally, the conclusions of the study did not rely solely on 14C dating of biological debris in the sediment, but in the age of the sediments themselves based on geological techniques.
Click to expand...

My apologies for not speaking clearly. The science supporting radiocarbon dating is theory supported by a foundation of math and science.

In essence radio carbon dating is a measurement based in the theories of math and science.
 
Last edited:
CocoLoco said:
Theory = hypothesis.

Evidence proves accuracy or fitness

It's the scientific method

I realize theists want to jump on the words "theory" and "hypothesis" and make it seem like there is doubt about the supporting science. And this can rattle some "sciencey" people. The same as when theists get rattled because their is no proof of an otherworldly presence. The best answer to give them is the I've already stated. Yes, they are absolutely correct. Science does is not meant to be finite. It doesn't have a neat beginning and end. The theories of science are always up for debate and test. And as new evidence is uncovered science allows for the picture to shift. Of course it does. That's what it's all about.

The theists want to convince everyone, particularly themselves, that this somehow makes science inferior to faith. That faith is "solid" and "fundamental" and science is "nebulous" and "ethereal". The very best response is, "Yeah, I already know that. And I'm completely comfortable being uncomfortable in the unknown. Even when it scares me into a pucker event. I'd rather float along in uncertainty with only science/reason to guide me rather than tell myself a lie in order to create the facade of stability."
Click to expand...

To say that hypothesis is the synonymous with theory is both wrong and confusing to the discussion
When a creationist uses the word theory, he understands it as "opinion" as in the opposite of "proven fact"
You are right science does not deal in absolutes and creationists spin that to mean that scientific opinions are, or should be equal with their opinions.
That is based both on self imposed ignorance of science and also on spin from creationists propaganda sites that purposely present it that way.
Best way to discuss science with creationists is to explain it in as simple terms as possible. They easily glaze over anything that a 12year old would have to read twice to understand.
I'm not being patronizing about this, is based on experience. If they had the intellectual curiosity to understand real science, they wouldn't be creationists in the first place.
 
People get a stickler for C14 dating to be inaccurate, well that's why they use other methods too to help verify a timeline.

It's not simply just radio carbon dating, it's a corroboration of geological, other radio isotope data, anthropology and an array of other scientific disciplines.
 
Last edited:
Corb said:
I'm not being patronizing about this, is based on experience. If they had the intellectual curiosity to understand real science, they wouldn't be creationists in the first place.
Click to expand...

So your problem is with creationists or 6000 year creationists? Are you saying that science is to the point that it has disproven any possibility of creation?

And just for clarification, the above statement is patronizing. :laughing "I'm not a racist, but..."
 
scootergmc said:
So your problem is with creationists or 6000 year creationists? Are you saying that science is to the point that it has disproven any possibility of creation?

And just for clarification, the above statement is patronizing. :laughing "I'm not a racist, but..."
Click to expand...

Enough overlap to be basically the same thing.
The religious ID proponents that are not also young earthers are a irrelevant minority who usually argue for a deist point rather than creation by a specific god.
Most creationists are also young earthers simply because thats part of the fundamentalist ideology they grew up in or very rarely chose.
And science has not disprove any possibility of creation simply because science ignores the idea of creation to begin with.
Creation by a deity deals with the realm of the supernatural and science deals with the natural
What science has done is prove that we have sufficient understanding of the natural world to not need supernatural fairytales to explain our reality anymore.
And if you feel my comment above is patronizing, then you earned it by being an adult of at least average intelligence who lives in self imposed ignorance of reality in order to keep believing in bronze era mythology
 
Corb said:
And if you feel my comment above is patronizing, then you earned it by being an adult of at least average intelligence who lives in self imposed ignorance of reality in order to keep believing in bronze era mythology
Click to expand...

Actually, the comment was patronizing by definition, as is this one. You've made some broad assumptions about me.
 
mean dad said:
If only there was a way to not click on the thread... :laughing
Click to expand...

The thread is about a tool made and used millions of years ago. The people stuck in the 6K-yo earth aren't going to dig it, neither now or in a million years. Why beat this dead horse with a stick over and over and fucking over again everytime this kind of thread comes up? Say your piece in 1-2 posts and STFU. We know how you feel about the subject. Quit yapping. (Not you, Kev.)
 
Marcoose said:
The thread is about a tool made and used millions of years ago. The people stuck in the 6K-yo earth aren't going to dig it, neither now or in a million years. Why beat this dead horse with a stick over and over and fucking over again everytime this kind of thread comes up? Say your piece in 1-2 posts and STFU. We know how you feel about the subject. Quit yapping. (Not you, Kev.)
Click to expand...

Another guy who thinks he should be the judge of approved subjects of discussion on Barf.
Who is forcing you to read this thread? Who is forcing anyone to participate in this discussion if they are not interested in it?
I have no interest in 18 out of 20 thread on the sink. I have never once even thought to complain that I find poop threads stupid or chat whores irrelevant or sport thread boring etc.
I simply ignore them. And best part is, it takes no effort. You should try it.
 
I try to avoid the evangelists, both christian and atheist.

They tend to fuck up an otherwise decent conversation about things like ROCKS!


:twofinger
 
Wormwood said:
I try to avoid the evangelists, both christian and atheist.
Click to expand...

Obviously not!
Besides who said anything about atheism?
This discussion as far as I can tell is about science vs anti science.
Or was before the thread derailment...
 
Such vehemence in these threads.

Oh Marcoose, kev is a great fisherman...he gets exactly the results he's looking for. He's the master of the BARF scientific method. :laugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top