A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.
by stcordova » Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:51 am
-
stcordova
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am
by Paul Giem » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:10 pm
-
Paul Giem
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am
by Paul Giem » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:11 pm
Sal, can you enable superscript and subscript?
-
Paul Giem
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am
by Paul Giem » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:26 pm
I just figured out the correct formula for the 95th percent confidence limit if one finds carbon-14 in 10 out of samples. It is the 10th root of 0.05, or 0.74, multiplied by 10. That is, if we expect 7.4 out of the 10 samples, or more, to have measurable carbon-14, then equal to or greater than 5% of the time we will find that all 10 of our samples have carbon-14.
-
Paul Giem
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am
by stcordova » Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:30 pm
-
stcordova
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am
by stcordova » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:40 pm
I am a member of CRS and have access to Rotta's paper. Incredible. Public domain portions I will post here if I have time.
-
stcordova
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am
by stcordova » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:32 pm
Last edited by
stcordova on Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
stcordova
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am
by sterusjon » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:11 pm
Stcordova,
I am confused by N = number Uranium atoms in your prior entry. What you posted seems complete with only references to N. Does N refer to Thorium as another, albeit weaker, source of C?
Stephen
-
sterusjon
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:37 pm
by stcordova » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm
SteRusJon,
Thank you, I made a mistake, and corrected it to Thorium. I'm still working through the paper and it seems this section is a bit confusing in the paper. I'm trying my best to summarize the salient points. I can e-mail you the paper if you think you can help me uncoil it. I might try to see if some of the nuclear chemistry students at JMU can help me work the problem out.
Sal
-
stcordova
-
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am
by sterusjon » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:15 pm
Sal,
Please forward the paper to me. I do not know how much help I can be since the cobwebs are rather dense in the my mind's physics archive. But, right now, I am in the mood for a little house cleaning in that section.
Stephen
-
sterusjon
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:37 pm
Return to Creation Science