|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JonF
OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. ... I agree, especially when you consider the correlations, that is a pretty tough argument to make.
... I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue. Which is also why I want to shift the scam part of the argument to the proper scam thread where people have already (I believe) addressed it. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
J suggests that the tree ring data appears to correlate with other aging data because the tree ring data is phony. If that proposition is off topic here, then the scope of the discussion on age correlations is extremely narrow. The problem he has, is that there are three independent tree ring chronologies that would all have to be jiggered the exact same way, along with the correlations in them for absolute values of 13C/12C and 14C/12C, AND the correlation of peaks in the 14C/12C data that match the solar cycles that affect 14C production. That is a very hard nut to crack, imho, with just some 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of emails -- he's going to need more than that, he's going to need empirical data to show it is wrong. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi revelation, and welcome to the fray.
The information presented here is amazing. Thank you.
The Bible account in Genesis allows for a very old earth. It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly. This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi kofh2u
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this idea of dating things is outside the Site's intended consideration of Evolution Vs Creationism, and only the techniques of Modern day dating are under discussion This is not a thread to discuss interpretations of the biblical accounts, although that could be an interesting thread on it's own. This thread is to discuss the correlations in results from all the systems/methodologies covered in the OP.
Is this a part of the site where the science people get their science straight among themselves, and some other location exists for the Creationism people? This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist.
It occurs to me that though Genesis is open to private interpretations, it does establish some links between the geological and biological events it enumerates and the time line of seven "days" which could be understood as the same geological rock layers we use radioactive dating to identify in regard to age. My point being that things like first life appearing in a Spontaneous Generation during the third "day" coorelated one-to-one with science Abiogenesis in the Archeozoic "evening"/Proterozoic "morning" Eras. ... As noted above, this could make an interesting topic on it's own. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi kofh2u
So this is the place where one MUST either say the Bible contradicts science and there science is wrong, or conversely, that the Bible says is wrong because science contradicts people who SAY what the Bible says, not what it DOES say Not really. This is the place where you see how science explains all the correlations in a coherent and rational manner, and that if you think you have a alternate explanation, that you must then also be able to explain all the correlations, or admit that it doesn't explain the evidence that contradicts a young earth. One of the alternatives is that the evidence lies, that it is illusion. This, of course, does not mean that any alternative explanation a person has is then a better explanation, just that any explanation then is equally (in)appropriate, and there is no rational way to pick one over the other. The big problem with this kind of explanation is that it means that whatever creator is behind the evidence being misleading is therefore a liar.
The fact that it is way long later, in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hoiur day is even created makes no difference in this ridiculous limitation to people whose reading comprehension is so poor and science people who want to pull their pants down here without my too cents? Curiously, this does nothing to explain the correlations.
How convenient to lies on both sides. Snide comments and ad hominem attacks also do not explain the correlations. Perhaps the thread you are really looking to participate in is the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi kofh2u
Well that surprises me. I though the Evolution Vs Creationism site was actually about science demonstrating that the Bible is wrong particularly in Genesis1. Curiously it is about debating sciences against beliefs, with each side demonstrating how their side explains reality and the evidence for reality. This thread presents a number of correlations between different age measuring systems, especially ones that rely on direct counting of annual phenomena, and shows how they form a cohesive congruent system of age measurements. The question then posed is that -- if you think the earth is not as old as these measurements show -- how do you explain the correlations.
With that understanding, I post what the Bible actually says, which is NOT a young earth. If that is what you believe then there is no need for you to post on this thread -- you essentially agree with it.
So you silence this input because it eliminates the conversation if I am correct,... ... and it negates your attack on the Bible. You want to focus on the Straw Man of a very small bunch of Christian dummies who can not read Genesis comprehensively. What I see is a set of rules which allow science people to pretend they have overcome the Christian faith in the bible by focusing on the few imbeciles. It is not an attack on the bible, rather it is an attack on an interpretation of the bible that tells people that the earth is young. If you do not ascribe to such an interpretation then this does not attack the bible as you interpret it.
How nice for the science side of this site,... How nice that the evidence of reality supports a consistent pattern of age dating methodologies that produce consistence, corroborative and consilient results. That alone appears to support the scientific process.
I agree -- the evidence shows that it is old -- and thus there is no need for you to participate further on this thread, as the purpose of the thread is to have people who disagree with the age of the earth to present information on how they explain the correlations that occur. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Start at Message 1
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 489 of thread Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo where mindspawn says:
quote: So to answer mindspawns post:
... But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc. Curiously this misinformation hand waving dismissal has no effect on the actual science involved. The issue is correlations and why they occur to such a fine degree of accuracy if such errors are rampant.
What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison. The issue is correlations between dating methods and why they agree so consistently (within 0.5% over 8,000 years with just tree rings .... )
PS I am not a YEC, I believe ... and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago. Which to me qualifies as a YEC concept that is invalidated by the information provided on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (three different tree ring chronologies extend to over 12,000 years of life (see Message 3 and Message 4), varves in Lake Suigetsu extend to over 35,000 years of organic life embedded in the varves(see Message 5 and Message 21)). Note that the varves are alternate layers of diatom tests (shells) and slow settling clay (representing summer and winter life cycles). Again the issue is correlations, not just the methodology -- why do all these methods correlate for age, climate and other factors (ratios of 14C/12C ratios same for same layer ages, for instance). This is the correlation between the annual tree rings, climate, sun cycles and the ratios of 14C/12C (see Message 4): 404 Page not found (9)
quote: Note the little jigs and jags along this curve all match up between the different dendrochronologies -- they are from climate changes and from sun cycles (which can be observed today with the same periodic cycles) -- and how little "scatter" there is in the plot. The overall difference between the data and the theoretical line (at 45°) is due to climate changes, and this curve is used to correct 14C dating to more probable ages ... with the correction making objects tested older than plain vanilla results. Just this information should make you seriously doubt your 7,000 year age for organic life if not trash it altogether (the scientific approach to invalidated concepts). This is the correlation between annual varve layers in Lake Suigetsu, the rate of deposit of the layers, ash deposits from volcanoes, and 14C/12C ratios (see Message 21): The labeled ash deposits have been dated from other locations and correlate with the data here. Note the correlation between C-14 and depth and with C-14 and the varve layer count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. Why? When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution: Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does -- age. At this point a rational person that cannot explain these correlations should discard all notions of life limited to the last 7,000 years, but hey: have a whack at trying to explain the correlations and we'll see what happens. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... it's always the same three, two of which are not assumptions involved in most geological radiometric dating and one which is a conclusion based on mountains of data.
The issue of "Assumed constant decay rate" can be discussed on the Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? thread as well as on this thread with the evidence for the correlation of constant decay rate dating methods with the annual counting methods, noting as I have in Message 9 quote: Two radiometric methods were used on the calcite, agreeing with each other, they also correlated the levels of d18O and d13C with the levels in the ice cores annual dating system. The variations in d18O and d13C represent climate variations. There are other ways that radiometric dating correlates with other methods, thus showing the scientific, robust, value of radiometric dating. A good reference to radiometric dating is Radiometric Dating
quote: Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
In Message 497 of Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo midspawn says:
quote: Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. ... What I ask for is an explanation for the correlations:
Message 1: The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results. That is the only requirement that I have set out. For instance, if you claim that double rings are common in dendrochronology then you have to explain the correlations with the sun cycles and 14C/12C ratios which would not be changed by whatever causes double rings.
... when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness) Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this.
Due to this bias I cannot be restricted to publications of the scientific community only. Seems like an excuse to me to avoid having to deal with the information here. This is predictable: most creationists seem to avoid this thread because the information is too dangerous to their beliefs. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Starting with varves, its the study of modern varve creation that reveals to us how they were created historically, and these layers that look like "annual" often are not annual layers (they look like varves but are not). See Message 5:
quote: These varves are formed by alternate seasonal deposition: diatoms in the spring and clay the rest of the year. The clay deposition is fairly constant year round, so it is the diatom layers that mark the annual season of growth.
Due to there being many many places in which varve-like patterns are formed, just according to the sheer number, its easy to find one "varve pattern" that has a vaguely correlating pattern to other dating methods. If they were rarer, then the "correlation" would have more significance. ... Curiously, I am not concerned with the many different kinds of varves, some of which would be problematic for dating, but I am concerned with this one specific type formed by annual layers of diatom shells. Note that clay settles slowly and diatoms settle fast.
... If you choose spring tide "varves" (true varves are annual, not monthly) you will be out by a factor of 12, and you will achieve an automatic close match with carbon dating, which can also be out by a factor of 12. These varves are in a lake and have nothing to do with tides and seashells. Your discussion of seashell varves is irrelevant to the actual varves in question.
Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, and the dates are established according to current carbon atmospheric content. ... A patently false statement. See Message 4 for this correlation of annual tree rings with 14C/12C ratios:
quote: This 14C/12C ratio declines along an exponential curve as predicted by radioactive decay, and this data correlates with the linear curve of tree rings with age. This curve is extended further to cover the current limits of dendrochronology (ibid):
quote: It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, So it would have necessarily interrupted the dendrochronology ... which extends to over 12,400 years ago in a continuous uninterrupted sequence.
... thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. ... ... but not changing the ratio of 14C/12C. All that carbon would still have the same 14C/12C from when the plants died, the 14C would not decay any faster.
... Most civilizations report an impact event around 3500bp (Kohl's revised dating) which would have also destroyed vegetation thus kept the carbon ratio high. Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures rather than the fluctuating pressures of the past. You will note that there is no spike or discontinuity in the general slope of the line in the above graph at circa 1500BC. I could not find any relevant link when I googled Kohl's revised dating so I will need more information on this please. But I note that tree rings in the Sierra Nevada, tree rings in Germany, tree rings in Ireland and lake varves in Japan are not affected. But I will also note that volcanic eruptions were cross correlated with the Lake Suigetsu varves (see Message 21):
quote: You will note that there is no spike or discontinuity in the general slope of the line in the above graph at circa 1500BC, nor is there a significant change in 14C/12C for each of the volcanic ash deposits noted. This is because the ratio is not changed by the amount of carbon -- both 14C and 12C are increased when vegetation is decomposed\burned etc.
... Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures rather than the fluctuating pressures of the past. Which does not explain the correlations seen with tree rings and lake varves. Sorry, mindspawn, but your concepts of possible causes for errors in age measurements just do not explain the actual objective facts. It is the empirical data and the correlations that prove them to be wrong. This is why the correlations are the issue that you need to explain, not the methods. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm just interested. I based it on the statement that you made. But this is not a topic for discussion on this thread: please start a new thread to discuss this. I am also asking all other participants not to reply further to this issue on this thread. Thank you.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes and Dr Adequate (and others reading this)
Please stick to the age dating methodology and correlations and not take a side trip to other issues. Thanks.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm just responding to comments posted, I never intitiated off-topic discussions, only responded. And I would prefer that you don't respond so that this thread can stay focused on the issues of correlations. I will be marking ALL off-topic posts with jeers to emphasize this point. Please start another topic if you want to pursue this issue. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Edited by RAZD, : splgby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Let's stick to facts. If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord. It is a common observed phenomenon that diatom shells are washed up with spring tides, they normally form 12 layers a year, not one. ... Yet, curiously, this is a lake, not a seashore, and the varves have nothing to do with spring tides or regular tides, but with the annual growth and death cycle of diatoms in the lake.
... Let's stick to facts. If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord. ... AND you would need to show that both are indeed out by a factor of 12 rather than assume that one is (from misinterpretation) and that therefore the other is ... That doesn't explain the correlation.
http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2004-02/1075764676.Bt.r.html Plants will increase photosynthesis under increased pressures, absorbing more carbon 14 in the process, and absorb less under low pressures. Thus it is based on assumed consistency of air pressures. Carbon 14 dating is also based on assumed consistency in atmospheric carbon production. Your link says nothing about 14C. Photosynthesis will cause absorption of both 14C and 12C in the ratio present in the atmosphere. Changing the rate of photosynthesis does not change the ratio of 14C/12C. Trees go through an annual variation in the amount of photosynthesis between winter and summer, and this is WHY there are annual tree rings, but that does not change the 14C/12C ratio in each ring. There is no bias -- and no mechanism to cause bias -- in selecting one isotope of carbon more than another. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024