Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Radiocarbon Dating

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009

  Hi cloudy,
  
  Since some rather harsh censorship of a harmless, though possibly misguided, poster has just taken place I fear your remarks on this important topic may not be commented on. Hence the new thread.
  
  There were just a few technical points. In the upper atmosphere 14C is formed from 14N, not from a stable isotope of carbon. The energy for this transformation is ultimately provided by cosmic ray impacts.
  
  Radiocarbon dates are calculated as years 'before the present' but the present, in this context, is not 'today' but 1950; atmospheric nuclear explosions around that time produced large amounts of 14C and have made subsequent calculations much more difficult.
  
  The amount of 14C in the atmosphere does indeed fluctuate as you say but radiocarbon dates can be calibrated by tree ring derived material of known calendar age.
  
  Your last paragraph is very important and is absolutely fatal, IMO, to those who believe that the earth was created in historical times. Materials as different as shells, stalactites and lavas can be dated by various radioactive decay methods.
  
  If we are brought back into contact with the original poster I would like to try to explain that some of us have used these dating methods, and dismissing them as conspiracies by the scientific community simply will not wash. I hope communication is restored, after all Stonehenge as a coal mine ran on for weeks with no bones broken!
  
  Kind regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009

  Hi Doc,
  
  It saddens me I must say. To be fair to Andrew (host) this ultimate weapon is not used very often. It is possible that, despite his warning, he felt that the poster had moved too far in the direction of the mystical; but I thought that I and cloudy were keeping it the right side of historical. Other than this I saw nothing offensive in the posts even if I didn't share the opinions.
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009

  I have been following this topicΒ 
  What do you mean, you have been following this topic. You started the two threads that Andrew censored.
  
  Are you not the new boardmember U14015818 posting under another nickname? You both have the same idiosyncratic spelling, grammar and syntax.
  
  You regularly denote plurals using an apostrophe followed by an 's' (answer's, brother's, brick's). You invariably use lower case 'i' for the first person singular. You usually insert a full stop before an exclamation or question mark. You only use chain brackets { } rather than round or square ones.
  
  If I'm mistaken about this I aplogise.

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Gosh delrick you are a paranoid fellow,aren't you.Β 
  Delrick? Delrick has not addressed you on this thread, so why attack him here? His only post relating to you that I can find on these History Boards was Message 16 on the censored thread! You deny being the person who instigated that thread so why get so hot and bothered about Delrick here where he hasn’t posted?
  
  As I said previously, if I am doing you an injustice I apologize. You say you are not the same person who began the censored threads so I will take you on your honour and say I am sorry to have expressed my doubts. I apologize and will say no more.
  
  I look forward to further posts from you, and from U14015818, in the future. Welcome to the boards.

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Hi Mick_mac,
  
  I'm now totally confused about who is who; aside from you that is.
  
  But I think us historians have been drawn, unknowing, into a controversy between Delrick, Emily and others on the Religion & Ethics board. It's all to do with lost planets and ancient wisdom etc. Maybe there's some history in there somewhere, but maybe not.
  
  I feel Andrew's axe is poised to fall again; I shall only respond to posts where there seem to be no hidden agendas, wheels within wheels, or mysteries shrouded by enigmas!
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  message 1
  
  TP,
  
  Thanks for the corrections and extras. The shocking thing is I know all this from the science backgorund and my mistakes were trying to recall from memory rather than thinking it through!
  
  I suspect someone complained about the use of "fairy story" to describe religious beliefs. But I'd say Andrew's a good moderator and doesn't often close threads. Still, thanks for opening this one as dating techniques sometimes seem like "mystical boxes of tricks". And it gives me the chance to respond to this:
  
  From the previous thread, U14015818 asked:
  Do you know who invented this process.?.Could the facts of this measure be fixed in some way to trick the person using it..By this i mean if i engineer a machine to my own specifications would it not always give me the desired result.? {this is not to say that carbon dating doesn't work} but rather that, to my simple mind science does pocess many tricks..especially if there is an agenda..
  How transparent is this dating process ? and how many people would know if it is fallible.?
  Sorry my friend this is not a criticism just a question..Β 
  
  I think you're coming at this from a misconception. Carbon-14 dating isn't a maching made by one company who can cheat the results. The theory behind it is an open scientific theory which has been published in academic journals after other independent scientists have reviewed the articles. Other scientists then have plenty of opportunity to query the theory and test it themselves, and then the chance to object should they arrive at different results. The machines themselves are built by different companies so preventing one person from arriving at the result they want.
  
  So no real scope for anyone to cheat, other than simply lying about the result.

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Hi TP,
  
  I’m sure there is some history in this topic somewhere and you and CloudyJ were manfully trying to find it. I have no doubt that Andrew will close this thread also and I am conscious that I sent it off on a non-historical tangent about identities.
  
  Best Wishes to you, too.
  
  Mick_mac
  

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Hi Mic Mac, TP,
  
  We've had an issue with a troll who'd been banned from other Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ boards several times in the past. The Moderators are dealing with this and will take further action if neccessary.
  
  If you feel you still want to keep this discussion on Radiocarbon Dating going I'm happy to leave it open for legitimate users to contribute to.
  
  Thanks for bearing with us.
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  ...or if you'd rather you're welcome to repost your OP in a new thread and set it off on a fresh start.
  
  Many thanks
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 7.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Hi Andrew,
  
  Thanks for the explanation; all is now clear. I did think that there was a genuine enquiry, but then I'm the easiest possible person to hood-wink. Now that cloudyj and I have discussed 14C dating I'm more than happy to draw a curtain on this painful scene!
  
  Regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Thanks Andrew, I think we're keeping this pretty much in the legitimate history sphere for now.
  

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Ok! No worries.
  
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  All's well that ends well. Thank you, Andrew, for clarifying the situation for us.
  
  I have nothing to contribute just now on C14 dating. Sorry to have messed up other messageboard members genuine interests in history, archaeology and related topics.
  
  Mick_mac

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  Well if anyone feels they want to pick it up again it might be best to start a new thread anyway. If only to make it easier to follow without the deleted messages.
  
  Cheers
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Radiocarbon Dating

Back to top