<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Major Blunder in Science Reporting will Fuel Creationist Claims	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:15:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544544</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544544</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;The oldest tree known is a bit over 5,000 years old.&lt;/em&gt;

The oldest trees in the dendro time scale for various regions go back over 10,000 years.  The trees don&#039;t need to be alive, they just need to be the appropriate species, then linked to later ones and eventually living ones. 

The C14 calibration curves are somewhat context dependent (both environment and materials used because there are fractionation, context, and reservoir effects).  They initially were based on trees, but that is not the only way to do it. 

There is no pragmatic limit on how far back C14 can be calibrated.  Using trees, somewhat over 10K, but varves, speleothems, etc. can be linked into that as well.  There is no theoretical reason that the entire time range of C14 can&#039;t be calibrated.  

Currently, it is calibrated to somewhere between 25K and 30K.  (see Reimer et al 2004 in Radiocarbon)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The oldest tree known is a bit over 5,000 years old.</em></p>
<p>The oldest trees in the dendro time scale for various regions go back over 10,000 years.  The trees don&#8217;t need to be alive, they just need to be the appropriate species, then linked to later ones and eventually living ones. </p>
<p>The C14 calibration curves are somewhat context dependent (both environment and materials used because there are fractionation, context, and reservoir effects).  They initially were based on trees, but that is not the only way to do it. </p>
<p>There is no pragmatic limit on how far back C14 can be calibrated.  Using trees, somewhat over 10K, but varves, speleothems, etc. can be linked into that as well.  There is no theoretical reason that the entire time range of C14 can&#8217;t be calibrated.  </p>
<p>Currently, it is calibrated to somewhere between 25K and 30K.  (see Reimer et al 2004 in Radiocarbon)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: VolcanoMan		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544543</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[VolcanoMan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544543</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[MadScientist,

The oldest tree known is a bit over 5,000 years old. And if you want dates within the past 100 years, Pb-210 is a much more reliable method. The bomb signature is great, but as you said, the other radioisotopes are there too, to establish a check against other dating methods. The key to using a method is establishing its limitations, and C-14 is useful for some purposes; however, it&#039;s not the be-all-and-end-all of our arsenal, and the creationists would do well to recognise that the knowledge of the past scientists have assembled goes far beyond what we have learned with C-14.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MadScientist,</p>
<p>The oldest tree known is a bit over 5,000 years old. And if you want dates within the past 100 years, Pb-210 is a much more reliable method. The bomb signature is great, but as you said, the other radioisotopes are there too, to establish a check against other dating methods. The key to using a method is establishing its limitations, and C-14 is useful for some purposes; however, it&#8217;s not the be-all-and-end-all of our arsenal, and the creationists would do well to recognise that the knowledge of the past scientists have assembled goes far beyond what we have learned with C-14.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544542</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544542</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Actually, the atom bomb effect is huge, and really makes typical approaches to C14 dating difficult for the affected time period.  But, the shift in carbon abundance owing to the bombs is itself a marker that works better than C14

So the bombs converted Nitrogen to Carbon, and then scientists have converted the Carbon to Silver, as in Silver Lining.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the atom bomb effect is huge, and really makes typical approaches to C14 dating difficult for the affected time period.  But, the shift in carbon abundance owing to the bombs is itself a marker that works better than C14</p>
<p>So the bombs converted Nitrogen to Carbon, and then scientists have converted the Carbon to Silver, as in Silver Lining.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: MadScientist		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544541</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MadScientist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544541</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@VolcanoMan: The 14C dating is good to whatever contemporary period you want really.  The usual source for 14C is cosmogenesis in the upper atmosphere - the isotope is generated by bombardment with very high energy particles (mainly) from the sun.  Contemporary atmospheric values can be measured from air samples. Values from a few years ago (and also back to a few thousand years ago) can be established by cutting down trees. During the period of atmospheric nuclear tests there is the &quot;bomb pulse&quot; - a measurable increase in 14C (plus fairly large and easily measured amounts of other radioisotopes).  There are many complicating factors so the estimated error is a few years going by 14C and checking against tree rings.  100yr as the earliest dateable is definitely not the case though.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@VolcanoMan: The 14C dating is good to whatever contemporary period you want really.  The usual source for 14C is cosmogenesis in the upper atmosphere &#8211; the isotope is generated by bombardment with very high energy particles (mainly) from the sun.  Contemporary atmospheric values can be measured from air samples. Values from a few years ago (and also back to a few thousand years ago) can be established by cutting down trees. During the period of atmospheric nuclear tests there is the &#8220;bomb pulse&#8221; &#8211; a measurable increase in 14C (plus fairly large and easily measured amounts of other radioisotopes).  There are many complicating factors so the estimated error is a few years going by 14C and checking against tree rings.  100yr as the earliest dateable is definitely not the case though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Nathan Myers		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544540</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nathan Myers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544540</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[VolcanoMan: Didn&#039;t you know that radioactive decay rates have declined exponentially over the past 6Ky, causing events close to that boundary to appear spaced out over a much longer period?  (I guess the energy released per decay event must have increased correspondingly, because otherwise everything would have cooked.)

Can a creationist even consider a period of time as long as 150 My?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VolcanoMan: Didn&#8217;t you know that radioactive decay rates have declined exponentially over the past 6Ky, causing events close to that boundary to appear spaced out over a much longer period?  (I guess the energy released per decay event must have increased correspondingly, because otherwise everything would have cooked.)</p>
<p>Can a creationist even consider a period of time as long as 150 My?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Joshua Zelinsky		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544539</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua Zelinsky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544539</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This doesn&#039;t seem to me like something written by someone as you put it &quot;steeped in the creationist literature.&quot; To the vast majority of the population anything related to old things and carbon is part of that whole vague &quot;carbon dating.&quot; Hanlon&#039;s Razor may need to be applied here. Of course the actual YECs will use this to distort it and claim something is wrong with dating and all that, because that&#039;s what they do. They would do that even if this were reported accurately. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This doesn&#8217;t seem to me like something written by someone as you put it &#8220;steeped in the creationist literature.&#8221; To the vast majority of the population anything related to old things and carbon is part of that whole vague &#8220;carbon dating.&#8221; Hanlon&#8217;s Razor may need to be applied here. Of course the actual YECs will use this to distort it and claim something is wrong with dating and all that, because that&#8217;s what they do. They would do that even if this were reported accurately. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: sinned34		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544538</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sinned34]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544538</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Is it that creationists don&#039;t understand the damning evidence, or do they just live in blissful denial?&lt;/i&gt;

It&#039;s a combination of blissful denial, ignorance of the evidence against their beliefs, and the demonizing of scientists as representatives of the devil. At least, that&#039;s how I remember it being at the evangelical/pentacostal churches I used to frequent.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Is it that creationists don&#8217;t understand the damning evidence, or do they just live in blissful denial?</i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s a combination of blissful denial, ignorance of the evidence against their beliefs, and the demonizing of scientists as representatives of the devil. At least, that&#8217;s how I remember it being at the evangelical/pentacostal churches I used to frequent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544537</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544537</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[When we were rebuilding a science archaeology lab at Harvard back when I was a grad student we had to get rid of the old C-14 dating machine because it was in the way.  

That was the original machine, with which the technique was invented, of course.  The thing was COVERED with dust. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we were rebuilding a science archaeology lab at Harvard back when I was a grad student we had to get rid of the old C-14 dating machine because it was in the way.  </p>
<p>That was the original machine, with which the technique was invented, of course.  The thing was COVERED with dust. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jim Thomerson		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544536</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Thomerson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544536</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In historical geology class, in 1956, we got two full lectures on radioactive dating, with an emphasis on what can go wrong.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In historical geology class, in 1956, we got two full lectures on radioactive dating, with an emphasis on what can go wrong.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: VolcanoMan		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544535</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[VolcanoMan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/10/major-blunder-in-science-repor/#comment-544535</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I get this all the time from students who question the age of fossils, old sedimentary beds, and by extension, the age of the origin of life and the age of the Earth all based on a flawed understanding of C-14 dating. As far as I am aware, the usefulness of the technique is for samples between 100 and 50,000 years old, the former limit set by the inability to detect a change in C-14/C-12 in the sample vs. the atmosphere within the margin of errors involved, and the latter by the inability to detect C-14 at all (but perhaps more sensitive instrumentation can extend this further...not millions of years further, but further). Truth is, I don&#039;t like carbon dating very much because I&#039;m a rock guy and it doesn&#039;t tell me about rocks (except recent lava flows that happened to burn vegetation and turn it to charcoal). In other areas of geology, like dating lake and wetland cores, I admit that it proves useful, but the fact is that there are variations in the concentration of C-14 in the atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; that plants metabolise, and modelling the supposed changes makes me nervous, like most modelling. Also, the error bars associated with C-14 dates make me cringe (I&#039;m an analytical chemist by training), although the instrumentation is getting better. But if you need a rough-and-ready estimate of the age of a Stone Age hearth, it can be very useful. That&#039;s more of an archaeology thing though, not really my area of interest.

Now uranium dating, or potassium-argon dating, those have error bars, sure, but the samples are hundreds of millions of years old! What&#039;s a few million years, plus or minus, when the number&#039;s that large! Here&#039;s where young-earth Creationism meets its ultimate destruction...there&#039;s no getting around those zircons man, they absolutely slay any chance that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old, and the fact that they had to crystallise from a molten state adds half-a-billion to the tally. Is it that creationists don&#039;t understand the damning evidence, or do they just live in blissful denial? Observation 1: Uranium turns into lead at a known half-life. Observation 2: If uranium is trapped in a crystal, the ratio between it and the particular radiogenic lead isotope it produces change according to the half-life, so you can calculate how long it took to produce the observed ratio.

I oversimplify, but...duh?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I get this all the time from students who question the age of fossils, old sedimentary beds, and by extension, the age of the origin of life and the age of the Earth all based on a flawed understanding of C-14 dating. As far as I am aware, the usefulness of the technique is for samples between 100 and 50,000 years old, the former limit set by the inability to detect a change in C-14/C-12 in the sample vs. the atmosphere within the margin of errors involved, and the latter by the inability to detect C-14 at all (but perhaps more sensitive instrumentation can extend this further&#8230;not millions of years further, but further). Truth is, I don&#8217;t like carbon dating very much because I&#8217;m a rock guy and it doesn&#8217;t tell me about rocks (except recent lava flows that happened to burn vegetation and turn it to charcoal). In other areas of geology, like dating lake and wetland cores, I admit that it proves useful, but the fact is that there are variations in the concentration of C-14 in the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> that plants metabolise, and modelling the supposed changes makes me nervous, like most modelling. Also, the error bars associated with C-14 dates make me cringe (I&#8217;m an analytical chemist by training), although the instrumentation is getting better. But if you need a rough-and-ready estimate of the age of a Stone Age hearth, it can be very useful. That&#8217;s more of an archaeology thing though, not really my area of interest.</p>
<p>Now uranium dating, or potassium-argon dating, those have error bars, sure, but the samples are hundreds of millions of years old! What&#8217;s a few million years, plus or minus, when the number&#8217;s that large! Here&#8217;s where young-earth Creationism meets its ultimate destruction&#8230;there&#8217;s no getting around those zircons man, they absolutely slay any chance that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old, and the fact that they had to crystallise from a molten state adds half-a-billion to the tally. Is it that creationists don&#8217;t understand the damning evidence, or do they just live in blissful denial? Observation 1: Uranium turns into lead at a known half-life. Observation 2: If uranium is trapped in a crystal, the ratio between it and the particular radiogenic lead isotope it produces change according to the half-life, so you can calculate how long it took to produce the observed ratio.</p>
<p>I oversimplify, but&#8230;duh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
