Mount st. helens Mount, helens

geopetro

The Christian Ban is impending.







First, I've got to sweep out his garbage.

awhytoh

Christian has been thrown to the lions.

iwhy1988

well here's a new bit a data, apparently according to numerous websites (and creationists! Woo!) mount St. Hellens disproves the accuracy of carbon dating due to its apparent incapability to date the eruption properly. As shown on the following creationist website:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521






Now since I'm lazy, and would be interested to hear your outlooks, especially explanations on the inaccuracy and alternative methods reported that did show an accurate date (or information related to this), I've posted it here! Woo!





Now, personally, this comes as no suprise to me. Especially given the type of volcano eruption and results we're talking about here, but using this as a single statement to disprove dating methods is rather annoying. So have at (prove it disproves it or prove it doesn't!).

petroeso

Our good buddies at talkorigins have this one covered already.






talk origins response












This is pretty common YEC practice.  They apply the wrong tests to the sample (for example, using carbon dating on fossils which are FAR too old to carbon date..) and then cry foul when the results are haywire.  Which is exactly what conventional science would expect when you intentionally use the wrong test on the wrong sample.  From wiki, on K-AR dating:





and








So at a glance, it seems that not only is this an inappropriate test to use on a sample that's only 20 years old, but the sample isn't homogeneous anyway so that again makes it a poor test.





It's deceptive, dishonest YEC NONSENSE that unfortunately is very common.

1981pkwg

Somebody ban this Christian guy already. All he does is spam this support007 site.





Anyway.


I looked into it earlier, and was going to post the obvious that the test requires samples older than 100,000 years, but then realized that the problem is that there was argon in the samples that shouldn't have been there. However, if the samples weren't homogenous, then there you go. That's the problem in a nutshell.

4epipec

What the hell does that nonsense have to do with anything?

soft37pi

Word. Well, anyway, I did check the talking origins website before posting this but I was hoping for more alternative answers. Especially since I gave that *exact explanation* to a theist, who instead of looking at the website, called them total liars. And offered that link as *real* and thus *non-lying*.     Hence why I was hoping alternative sources would be brought in so I wouldn't have to deal with such ignorance again. Especially since I had trouble *locating* sources with evidence for this event aside from that one website.

petrollb

The thing about talkorigins is that they INCLUDE THEIR REFERENCES.  Anyone is free to go check the references themselves, and they are undoubtably credible references.  Creationist nonsense rarely has references, and when they do it is generally to more creationist rhetoric - hardly a reputable scientific source.

gasnews9

Though not exactly the same, this creationist stuff reminds me of a quote by George Carlin:





"If human beings are really the only intelligent life in the universe...then the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."  

azageoy

Yes, carbon isotope ratios are used for dating.  I think 12/13 is for older stuff, and 12/14 might be for younger stuff?  Not too sure but I know for a fact that carbon isotope ratios are used for dating things of the order of centuries.