Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: At least we're not IIDB

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 14297 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
RH Brown and Carbon 14
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.


Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?
I believe Wally Brown's scheme to discredit by reinterpretation of radiocarbon dating and the available data was totally destroyed previously, I think it was Mikes PSS.

Why Bluffy is bringing this back up is a total mystery. Other than he's really never accepted anything and will always bring up previously settled matters over and over and over again. Totally ineducable.
Are we there yet?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3
Not Wally ... RH

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #4
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?
I believe Wally Brown's scheme to discredit by reinterpretation of radiocarbon dating and the available data was totally destroyed previously, I think it was Mikes PSS.

Why Bluffy is bringing this back up is a total mystery. Other than he's really never accepted anything and will always bring up previously settled matters over and over and over again. Totally ineducable.
It ain't Wally.  R.H. Brown.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #5
Kalksjon

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #6
Kalksjon
Indeed. Dave, remind us. Where did you leave off from that?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #7
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?
I believe Wally Brown's scheme to discredit by reinterpretation of radiocarbon dating and the available data was totally destroyed previously, I think it was Mikes PSS.

Why Bluffy is bringing this back up is a total mystery. Other than he's really never accepted anything and will always bring up previously settled matters over and over and over again. Totally ineducable.
It ain't Wally.  R.H. Brown.
I have fucked up and shall have The Girl administer appropriate corrective discipline.

However, is there any qualitative difference between the two? In terms of knowledge, ethics, biases, etc.?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #8
Kalksjon
Indeed. Dave, remind us. Where did you leave off from that?
He's never stopped running, so, technically, he's not left off yet.
Are we there yet?

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #9
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?
I believe Wally Brown's scheme to discredit by reinterpretation of radiocarbon dating and the available data was totally destroyed previously, I think it was Mikes PSS.

Why Bluffy is bringing this back up is a total mystery. Other than he's really never accepted anything and will always bring up previously settled matters over and over and over again. Totally ineducable.
It ain't Wally.  R.H. Brown.
I have fucked up and shall have The Girl administer appropriate corrective discipline.

However, is there any qualitative difference between the two? In terms of knowledge, ethics, biases, etc.?
RH isn't insane like Wally, just deluded.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #10
For anyone who'd like to see the old Dawkins.net thread where Mike thoroughly cleaned Davie-doodles' clock, Dawkins.net AFDave on Brown.

A lot of images are missing, partly because of Photobucket's decision to charge $400/year for the privilege of displaying your images on other sites.  :mad:
  • Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 01:13:16 PM by JonF
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #11
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.

Are there any facts behind "suggested, arbitrary, presumed" that you want to discuss?
I believe Wally Brown's scheme to discredit by reinterpretation of radiocarbon dating and the available data was totally destroyed previously, I think it was Mikes PSS.

Why Bluffy is bringing this back up is a total mystery. Other than he's really never accepted anything and will always bring up previously settled matters over and over and over again. Totally ineducable.
It ain't Wally.  R.H. Brown.
I have fucked up and shall have The Girl administer appropriate corrective discipline.

However, is there any qualitative difference between the two? In terms of knowledge, ethics, biases, etc.?
RH isn't insane like Wally, just deluded.
Ah ha, I'll make a note of that.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #12
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #13
For some reason I don't see a posted picture in Dave's OP (some setting of my account???).

However, the attached graph is still valid and is the point of discussion that we left off way back when.

A quick interpretation; "Brown's Assertion" is the paper that R.H.Brown wrote about how 14C levels can be converted to flood dates.  The OTHER lines show Brown's original data set overlaid on different carbon mass flow models of the biosphere with 14C production in the atmosphere holding steady over time.  What's obvious is that when you compare Brown's assertion with an actual model of carbon flows in the biosphere while using Brown's starting point data (remember, all this is POST FLOOD and not influenced at all by flood/god/WallyBrown/etc.) you see that Brown's Assertion is incorrect.

In other words, R.H.Brown got HIS date estimation model wrong and we should revisit the assumptions and assertions used in all the models (Brown's and the carbon biosphere flow models).
  • Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 07:12:51 AM by MikeS

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #14
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #15
I was trying to explain the two conflicting views on carbon-14 to my son the other day who is studying to be an elementary school science teacher...  here's what I came up with...

Quote
I've always thought that if you can't explain something simply, then you probably don't understand it ... so here goes ...

Best way to explain Carbon 14 is with an analogy ... Imagine a 5 gallon bucket filled with clean water.  And a dripper above it with bleach dripping out of it into the bucket.  If you adjust the drip rate, you'll end up with an equilibrium in the bucket because chlorine is volatile and will evaporate out of the water ... let's say that 1 drop per minute ---> 1 ppm of chlorine in equilibrium in the water bucket.  The bleach is analogous to Carbon 14 being added to the atmosphere / biosphere, which is analogous to the water in the bucket.

EVOLUTIONIST VIEW
"There has always been 5 gallons of water in the bucket (same quantity of living biomass on earth) ... for millions of years.  And the chlorine drip rate has been 1 drop per minute for millions of years, so the ppm at the time of death of any organism is 1 ppm."

CREATIONIST VIEW
"Most of the 5 gallons got spilled out of the bucket (biomass got buried) at the time of the Flood leaving maybe a cupful of water (living biomass) in the bottom.  So the chlorine concentration will reach a new equilibrium ... say 100 ppm." 

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #16
 In the interest of having an intelligent conversation, do you agree with this analogy? Do you agree that I have fairly stated both views?  ( ignoring the actual numbers )

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #17
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?
Where do YOU think it came from?

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #18
Quote
elementary school science teacher

this isn't a thing
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #19
Quote
elementary school science teacher

this isn't a thing
What? I had one.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #20
In the interest of having an intelligent conversation, do you agree with this analogy? Do you agree that I have fairly stated both views?  ( ignoring the actual numbers )
No.
For starters, you do not speak for "creationists".
You are representing the pseudoscientific views of a subset of creationists ("Young Earth Creationists") who take as axiomatic a <10,000 year old universe and the historicity of the Genesis flood myth.

Aside from that, the EVOLUTIONIST standard science* view would have the water representing the carbon in the atmosphere, not biomass.

* does your son plan to teach standard science, or YEC pseudoscience?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #21
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?
No, RHBrown modeled his system backwards.  His assumption was that a Flood occurred around 3,000 B.C. and that the 14C content of the atmosphere was near zero at that time.  he then just curve fit 14C:12C ratios that track back over 50,000 years into a ~5,000 year time span with some known and agreed upon intermediary archeological 14C:12C measured ratios.

In other words he started with the conclusion in mind.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #22
I was trying to explain the two conflicting views on carbon-14 to my son the other day who is studying to be an elementary school science teacher...  here's what I came up with...

Quote
I've always thought that if you can't explain something simply, then you probably don't understand it ... so here goes ...

Best way to explain Carbon 14 is with an analogy ... Imagine a 5 gallon bucket filled with clean water.  And a dripper above it with bleach dripping out of it into the bucket.  If you adjust the drip rate, you'll end up with an equilibrium in the bucket because chlorine is volatile and will evaporate out of the water ... let's say that 1 drop per minute ---> 1 ppm of chlorine in equilibrium in the water bucket.  The bleach is analogous to Carbon 14 being added to the atmosphere / biosphere, which is analogous to the water in the bucket.

EVOLUTIONIST VIEW
"There has always been 5 gallons of water in the bucket (same quantity of living biomass on earth) ... for millions of years.  And the chlorine drip rate has been 1 drop per minute for millions of years, so the ppm at the time of death of any organism is 1 ppm."

CREATIONIST VIEW
"Most of the 5 gallons got spilled out of the bucket (biomass got buried) at the time of the Flood leaving maybe a cupful of water (living biomass) in the bottom.  So the chlorine concentration will reach a new equilibrium ... say 100 ppm." 
The problem with this view of carbon is that it works for ONLY those biomass systems that integrate with the source of 14C (chlorine); i.e. the atmosphere.  Large amounts of carbon that is sequestered in the earth, and decoupled from contact with the atmosphere for more than 100,000 years has no part in the equilibrium.

The OTHER part is that the carbon model of the biosphere coupled to the atmosphere is more like a bunch of buckets interconnected with little pumps pumping the water around, but ONLY the atmosphere bucket having the chlorine dripped into it.



Why use analogies when you can use facts.  Tell your son the FACT about the carbon cycle.
THEN you can make up anything you want to describe your YEC story related to this same cycle since the carbon cycle has been active on earth forever.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #23
In the interest of having an intelligent conversation, do you agree with this analogy? Do you agree that I have fairly stated both views?  ( ignoring the actual numbers )
^^^

For Mike. Not Voxrat.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #24
"The OTHER part is that the carbon model of the biosphere coupled to the atmosphere is more like a bunch of buckets interconnected with little pumps pumping the water around, but ONLY the atmosphere bucket having the chlorine dripped into it."

 It doesn't appear to me that that makes a difference for the purpose of trying to understand the differences between the two competing views.