Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Are you ducking out on us?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Welcome to the fray RyanVanGo. Sad to say, I don't think you will find evidence for this, and the reasons are many: all the evidence that points to the earth being billions of years old.See the posts in this thread detailing not just the evidence for an earth significantly older than 10,000 years, but the correlations between the methods that validate each other, because there is no reason for these correlations ... without age. Kent Hovind is not a reliabe source of information. For instance his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed is contradicted by his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed. I can provide details, but that should be on another thread.This thread is about how various different counting methods show that the earth is significantly older than 10,000 years, and that the correlations between all these methods is explained by an old earth.Enjoy.

---

The thread Evidence for a recent flood has recently reached summation mode, and I am bringing it up here as this thread contains evidence that refutes a recent flood, or any world wide flood within the time frame of the evidence herein presented. See Message 1 for that information. Portillo had raised the question of using a blender to recreate sediment layers. The problem with this "experiment" is that it will only create layers sorted by sedimentation rates, not alternating layers with short and long sedimentation rates.The clay suspended in the water flowing into lake Suigetsu takes a long time to settle out and this occurs continuously, through the summer and winter; the diatoms on the other hand settle out very fast by comparison, but the shells are only produced during the summer growth blooms and only fall to the bottom when they die in the fall. This results in layers of only clay alternating with layers of mostly diatom mixed with some clay.See Message 5 and Message 21 for more information.However, the major problem for creationists to explain is not how each of the various age measuring systems could have individually malfunctioned in some way, but why they correlate with dates and events across the methods.Enjoy.

This can't be stressed enough. The results from Lake Suigetsu correlate with results from a lake in Poland. So we have two lakes on opposite sides of the world that have the same sorting of organic debris by 14C concentrations. Even within the same method there is considerable correlation.The correlations become even more impressive when you compare different methods. The two sets of lake varve data also agree with tree dendrochronology from both Europe and North America, coral dating by annual growth patterns, and carbon dioxide captured in annual ice layers in both Greenland and Antarctica. I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating.Creationists need to explain how all of these quite different methods all agree with one another.

Hi Taq, Not one creationist has been able to do this so far, and it is even worse for them when you note that these continuous records are not interrupted by any purported flood:

quote:

---

Message 3: Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).

​

Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

​

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.

​

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

​

And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.

---

And another 5 years have passed, making it 10,439 years of continuous data uninterrupted by a purported flood.And

quote:

---

Message 5: With the continual loss of C-14 with time due to radioactive decay, there is only one period where both the tree-rings and the lake varve fossils will have similar levels of remaining C-14 if they were living, growing and absorbing C-14 from the atmosphere at the same time.

​

Samples that get carbon-14 only from the same source while living (and that have not been contaminated by other carbon-14 since then) cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

​

Anyone wanting to invalidate the lake varves as being annual varves will need to provide a mechanism that produces a continual change in the decay of C-14 so that the curve can be compressed in the horizontal scale and match the curvature of the 5730 half-life curve. This has not been observed.

​

The logical conclusion is that this Carbon-14 data (the actual amount of C-14, not the calculated age) confirms the lake varve chronological age.

​

Minimum age of the earth > 35,930 years based on this data.

---

And we also know that a purported flood did not occur in this area during that time span, as the sediment layers would show debris and sediment from the flood waters.And this does not even begin to address the massive evidence for the age of the earth and the lack of a world wide flood event.Enjoy.

Not only that, you can also find markers from known volcanic eruptions in the correct ice layers (to which the other methods correlate to). I even remember reading a paper where they used modern tree dendrochronology to show the spread of 14C spikes caused by atmospheric hydrogen bomb testing. They were actually able to show how the 14C spike spread from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere over a years time. That is another great point. All of these data sets would be easily interrupted by Noah's Flood. In fact, the ice sheets themselves would have lifted off of the continents (unless creationists want to claim that ice did not float in Noah's time?). You should also see an interruption in tree growth and diatom sedimentation. Heck, you would expect contamination from marine plankton in the Lake Suigetsu record, but it isn't there. Instead, it is all fresh water diatom growth and organic debris sorted by tiny differences in 14C.C'mon creationists, explain these correlations.

Right.But wait! There's more!We have been told that the flood was a global flood (though a few are now backing off those claims).And biblical scholars have reached a general agreement of about 4,350 years ago for the global flood, with fewer and fewer estimates older than about 5,000 years ago.This means that evidence for the global flood should be... (wait for it)... GLOBAL! And RECENT! It should be in my back yard and your back yard and in creationists' back yards not too far beneath the surface.So here is the challenge for creationists: learn some archaeological techniques (local colleges and universities are the place to start) and get busy digging in your back yards. If there was a global flood you will find the evidence at a relatively shallow depth, one which can be dated by a variety of methods. If, by chance, you live in an asphalt and concrete jungle don't try digging in the nearest park--you'll get more attention than you probably want. But you could volunteer on an archaeological excavation, or take an archaeological field school. You don't have to tell them you are a creationist: just pay attention to the strata and their ages (the archaeologists will help fill you in on the data) and check out those strata closest to 4,350 years ago. If you see evidence of a flood at that time period you've got something!The problem you might run into is that early geologists, creationists set on proving the validity of the flood, gave up on it just about 200 years ago. The evidence wasn't there. When archaeology developed as a profession a bit later in the 19th century no evidence of Noah's flood was found using their different techniques--which dealt with soils rather than geological strata. No evidence of a global flood has been found since, right up to the present day, in either profession.In doing archaeology I've probably tested over 100 sites that cross-cut that time period and I've found no evidence of a flood in the areas in which I've worked. But if I could find and document such an event they'd create a special Nobel Prize just for the occasion! You can bet if there was any real evidence I'd be seeking it out and documenting it to a fine degree, and I'd be more famous than Galileo and all those other old guys. But the evidence is just not there: all of the various sciences that have examined the earth in ways that surely would have found such evidence have instead found that the evidence is conspicuous by its absence. Agreed.And while they're at it, they should explain why there is an absence of evidence for a global flood at the agreed-upon date in their back yards and everywhere else.

Hi Coyote, And they need to keep in the time-frame as defined in the documented correlations of age already provide unless they can explain all the correlations.These age correlations show that a global flood could not have occurred in over hundreds of thousands of years by several different methods.Kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place.Enjoy.

Hi again Taq See Message 9

quote:

---

To discuss radioactive decay and dating systems that are based on this concept we need a system not subject to this kind of variation. We also need one that can be correlated over substantial time to validate the system.

​

USGS URL Resolution Error Page (2)

​

quote:

---

Devils Hole is a tectonically-formed subaqueous cavern in south-central Nevada. Vein calcite, which coats the walls of this cavern, has provided an extremely well-dated 500,000-year record of variations in temperature as well as other paleoclimatic parameters.

---

​

We have correlations between age, climate and temperatures, ...

​

At the Devil's Hole we are essentially dealing with one very large stalactite. The calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the Th-230 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-234, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

​

The U-235 to Pa-231 decay is from a different series than the U-234 to Th-230 decay, so the two are independent of each other. Again, as the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the Pa-231 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-235, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

​

Using the half-lives of thorium-230 (75,380 years) and protactinium-231 (32,760 years), we can now draw the exponential curves for these isotopes (with % on the y-axis and time in k-yrs on the x axis, thorium in blue and protactinium in red):

​

​

This means we have a series of data with three different pieces of information: calcite layer age, Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 content. We also note that Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years, while Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years - less than half the half-life of Thorium-230. This means that layer by layer the ratio of Thorium-230 to Protactinium-231 is different:

   Age   THr=THf/THo PAr=PAf/PAo  THr/PAr
------------------------------------------
75,380     0.5000     0.2029        2.46
150,760     0.2500     0.0412        6.07
226,140     0.1250     0.0084       14.96
301,520     0.0625     0.0017       36.86
376,900     0.0313     0.0003       90.82
452,280     0.0156     0.0001      223.77
527,660     0.0078     0.00001     551.35

So for these dates to be invalid there would have to be a mechanism that can layer by layer preferentially change the ratio of these two {elements\isotopes} within the solid calcite vein.

---

Two different curves need to be explained by any creationist who want to challenge these methods: how did just the right amounts of each element get deposited if this is not a record of annual deposition over hundreds of thousands of years?How did just the right amounts of dissolved oxygen isotopes get deposited to match the annual layers for the antarctic ice cores for age and climate?oh, and a flood in this area would have destroyed the stalactite ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : table spacing

Further support for C14 dating is shown by varves in the Cariaco basin with winter-spring plankton growth and summer-fall increase in terrigenous grains. Starting at 12,000 BP the varve count versus C14 date curve follows that of Lake Suigetsu and goes out to 50.000 BP. U/Th to C14 pairs from corals to 24,000 BP fall on the same line.
The Cariaco results are reported to correlate with Greenland cores, Bahamas speleothem, and North Atlantic cores.
Interestingly, there is a rise in C14 age from 34,000 to 41,000 in just 2000 varve counts. This seems also to be shown in Lake Suigetsu and is attributed to variation in the solar wind.
This sharp rise and the reported plateaus in the C14 curve at 750- 450 BC and at 11,000 to 10,000 BP help to show that real results are being reported, and not just "correct" ones as some YEC might claim.

Hi Pollux, welcome to the fray, So this is a floating chronology, similar to Lake Suigetsu. How is it anchored? It would be nice to see some links and graphs.Enjoy.

Hi RAZD.
The Cariaco report is at Not Found and includes graphs. It seems to be anchored by C14 dating and ice-core comparison.
The Wiki article on Carbon Dating mentions the plateau at 10,000 -11,000years. I did not record where I saw the referral to the 750-450 BC plateau, but it seems to show on your dendrochronology graph. The Cariaco article also mentions other plateaus in the record.
I have been looking at the reports of ice and deep-sea cores. There is an immense amount of information in them which would be very difficult to squeeze in to a YEC paradigm, including many more correlations.

There is a lot of good information on this site:http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htmThe first link, "IntCal04 calibration curve" leads to a lot of graphs of the calibration curve.The actual datasets are also given in additional links.

Thanks Coyote for the links.
Further problems for the Flood (if any were needed).
Many if not most Flood proponents associate it with rapid plate tectonics which would cause massive vulcanism. This should show as a huge spike in volcanic material in ice and sea cores, which is not seen in the last few million years. Megavolcanic signs are seen but too long ago and not on the stupendous scale required.

All of the credible evidence shows that the earth is old and that there was no global flood during historic times.Those who argue to the contrary are not doing science, but are anti-science--they are promoting religious mythology in the face of massive scientific evidence that contradicts that mythology.The age correlations at the heart of this thread are one of the major stumbling blocks to both young earth and recent global flood, but the TRVE believers are not swayed by any amount of scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. In fact, for many of them, nothing will convince them that these two beliefs are wrong. They do not rely on evidence, much less scientific evidence, for their beliefs and so will not change those beliefs for such evidence.These are classic examples of Heinlein's statement that, "Belief gets in the way of learning."