Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

I thought it interesting that peat found beneath glacial sediments dated close to 11,000 years consistent to the biblical flood covering trees that were growning 11,000 years ago. This interesting did support my hypothesis that those Greenland wood fossils will dating 10,000 to 11,000 years based on some of the OEC's beliefs.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c1Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin--------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what big fans you are of Hovind Not to get you all upset but thought with his debate against Hugh Ross interesting in respect to Hovind defending YEC against a radical approach to OEC.Kent interestingly corrected Hugh Ross in respect to scripture that it can only be two choices 24 hour days, or 1000 years = a day.Kent's choice of words was interesting, he said "he thinks", note he never said he knew. But "he knew" Ross was wrong in respect to the Creation days being long periods of time than 1000 year creation days, because this was clearly not correlating with scripture. While Kent still believes its 24 hour days he is not saying he knows. I just thought it interesting that the great Kent Hovind is humble enough to say in respect to scripture "I think" in some instances based on scripture "he knows", as when correcting Hugh Ross on Scripture. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Hovind: "I think" the days have to be six normal days because there’s so many other references in Scripture. For instance, Exodus 20:11, in the Ten Commandments. God said, I want you to rest on the Sabbath because I made everything in six days. He wasn’t telling them to work six million years and then finally take a break, and the only two references you referred to about 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90 verse 4, both of them say a day is like a thousand years, they don’t say a million or a billion.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-19-2004 09:36 AM

I saw that, but I also saw that the bristlecone pine data was wrong too.Both those bitsof information were taken from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin, so I would have to check that book to see how good a reference it is.The other information is okay and useable.Why should I be surprised by Hovind's (or any other "professional" - meaning he makes a living at it - YEC)?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You didn't read the rest of my comment. The post is somewhere between respecting the individual and not.The attack is at least a fair portion on the nature of the argument. It's not enough out of bounds to get into a big knot about.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-19-2004 02:44 PM

Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with very slow sedimentation. Unless you are a YEC, that is. It supplied clays to Brethault? What are you talking about? Then you need to explain huge shale deposits on continental crust... Unfortunately, silts and clays have nothing to do with Brethault's demonstrations. His work is irrelevant to evolution or YEC.

Now that Craig seems to have taken a break from making stuff up perhaps this conversation can pick up again.Literalist, you were going to have a look at more of the correlations evidence. How's that coming. It would be nice to get back to a rational dicussion.

Hi Ned,It's not going too well at all. I'm afraid it's largely out of my realm of knowledge/understanding; so I can't talk about it too intelligently.I can say I am skeptical of the various assumptions used:ASSUMPTIONS:
1) tree rings are annual
2) Lake Suigetsu varves are an annual phenomenon
3) ice layers are annualIn This Page on Determining Tree Ages, we find: I am skeptical of assumption 1.In this report: Florida Bay Watch Report, I learned (esp. on page 2) that diatom blooms are dependent on many factors (levels of light, phosphorous, nitrogen, ammonia, and silicate--with silicate being rather important). Other reading on diatoms makes me consider that their blooms might also be related to relative levels of competing or predatory microbes and, possibly, salinity.There is no indication in RAZD'S links that ANY of these factors have been carefully studied at Lake Suigetsu. Nor does it appear that a careful study has been done even on present varve formation rates.Nor do I know what the rules were for determining an "annual varve"; nor was any such process described in detail--or if it was, I missed it.For all I know, the varves represent fluxes in silicate, nitrogen, phosphorous, ammonia or salinity levels as well as seasonal light and temperature variations.I am skeptical of assumption 2.In this ice core article, The Greenland ice core records, we find: How do they determine what constitutes a year's worth of layers? Admittedly, I haven't gotten further than this so they might tell us. However, at this point...I am skeptical of assumption 3.Now then,As far as the grand correlation is concerned, it seems that once each phenomenon is assumed annual, the correlation will happen automatically.It does seem that 14C/12C ratios correlates to tree-rings (and tree-rings are an indicator of age in some way). It does seem that 14C/12C ratios of fossils in Lake Suigetsu varves do correlate with varve DEPTH in some way, and varve depth MIGHT be an indicator of age in some way. I don't know enough about the ice cores yet to know what they are correlating to, but it would seem that ice layers indicate SOME level of age; so I wouldn't be surprised if SOME type of correlation comes out of the data.But once all phenomena are assumed annual, I am less than amazed that the data correlates among all phenomena, but I might still be missing some obvious features on the graphs (never did feel too confident on my reading of those).I wish I could do better than this, but some of the stuff goes into chemistry deeper than I can handle. Chemistry was NOT my strong point. I was also bad at statistics. Not having a good understanding of chemistry makes for particularly slow plodding in the ice core and devils hole articles. I grew weary of reading these articles, and have been taking a break from it. I might try to get back into it, but it would be later on, if I ever do.Oh well, for what it's worth...

The assumptions you listed are not assumptions in the sense of "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition". They are assumptions in the sense that they have only been (and continue to be) checked outside of the sphere of actually determining age. This does not mean, nor does it even hint, that they see more than one "annual" layer per year. Here, "resolution" means "The fineness of detail that can be distinguished". That is, with modern instrumentation and methods, we can distinguish detail within an annual layer, but which detail is not a layer itself.{Corrected spelling}This message has been edited by JonF, 12-31-2004 09:03 AM

I don't know enough about the details of the study of Lake Suigetsu to comment much on that.As for the others:You are sceptical of the annual tree rings because there are occasional "false" rings.However, in maintaining this sceptisism you ignore the fact that rings are counted from a number of different species and from a number of different locations spread around the world.In addtion, there are sometimes markers in these ring counts which connect these counts and, sometimes, with historic events.In addtion, the decay rate of C14 can be measured directly. The actual amount being stored in the rings does of course vary but not by more than a few percent; not enough to match up to the doubling of years by false rings.All of these various counts match up rather well, your suggestion of occasional false rings can not begin to account for that. It doesn't account for the reasonably close raw match between the C14 decay rate and the tree ring count. Does C14 suddenly decay twice as fast in a year when false rings are laid down?Ice Layers
You may not have read about it yet but the ice layers are separated by measureing isotopic abundances in the layers. This varies with temperature changes. Again these layers have historically know markers (volcanic eruptions) laid down in them every so often. The counts match up.After all this is set aside on a case by case basis there is still the need to explain the correlations between all of these methods AND many others. Again you haven't touched an explanation of that.Your comment: Is disengenuous I would say or not really spending any time thinking about it at all."and tree-rings are an indicator of age in some way)". False rings are, as you have noted, understood. They do not occur under all circumastance or for all spieces. Therefor they certainly do indicate age "in some way". They are reasonably close to years. They have been check by matching to historic events. They work as a count of years!"Varve depth MIGHT be..." This is absurd. Varve depth is a measure of age! Exactly how accurate a measure is what is being discussed.You have given not the smallest hint how all these (and other) methods could not only correlate by correlate quantitatively.To do that you would have to be suggesting that in the years when a false ring appears it happens in all trees over all the world AND at the same time C14 decays twice as fast AND the varves lay down twice as fast.After all this has happened then the resulting counts and measurements have to somehow match up to know historic events.I await your explanation of how this happens.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-31-2004 17:48 AM

There'a a good list of the methods used right here, in Greenland Ice Cores.

as noted by Ned the tree rings are self correcting by cross-references. as noted by JonF the detail of the ice core layers does not mean confusion on what is an annual layer, but long term seasonal variations can be detected as well (which also correlate with the tree rings and the lake varves and the ¹⁴C data on long term seasonal variations)let me add a comment on the lake varves:whether diatoms bloom or not during the summer months is irrelevant: there is a supply of diatoms that die and fall to the bottom at a greater rate than the sedimentation rate of the clay, even at the worst rate of growth.during the winter you cannot have blooms of diatoms becaues (1) it is too cold and (2) there is no light (the lake is covered with ice), and thus the only thing settling out during the winter months is the clay.this is what makes the system so robust: there is no way to get a false clay layer.and the second layer of correlations of the long term seasonal variations is the kicker: if any one system was not measuring annual data then the long term seasonal information from that system would not be correct -- the little ice age dates would be markedly wrong, the younger dryas would not be at the right time compared to the the others.It is like a voiceprint: not only is the same frequencies being spoken but the same overtones are present.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ooh that takes me back to my first ventures on this board (I was always the colorful one eh?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ned, JonF, RAZD, et al.,As far as these issues are concerned, I can, at this time, do no better than I have done. I feel that there SHOULD be explanations for these "problems," but I am CERTAIN that I will be unable to provide such explanations (unless I become a good deal more knowledgeable).

Well, there is an explanation. The earth is as old as dated, it is not 6,000 years old.It should make you wonder that this sort of information has been available for years and there are no creationist sites explaining the correlations. It isn't just you that can't explain this. The entire creationist camp can't come up with something that covers all the information available.That leaves only one working explanation for now. That is what science has to teach. There is nothing else to give equal time to in classrooms is there? When a better explanation comes along that is what will be taught in the classrooms. Do not hold your breath waiting on the so-called creation "scientists".

Thanks for your attention to detail and open approach and attempt to learn what you can that fits with your world view.I have to agree with Ned that the only logical conclusion is that the world is older than any YEC model can account for.Note that I do not take this as a refutation of Christianity anymore than I would regard the proof of the earth being an oblate spheroid in elliptical orbit around a rather insignificant star in one of unknown numbers of galaxies instead of a flat disk at the center of it all to be such a refutation -- that would be futile, imho.All it means is that one kind of interpretation of information is not correct: mankind is fallible, no biggie.Also thank you for admitting when it got beyond your knowledge level rather than the usual denial route (ie -- craig).I look foward to further discourse on other topics.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

take it from the beginning of this thread...
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 15:26 AMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 17:23 AM