Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 61 of 224 (705648)
08-30-2013 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
08-30-2013 1:27 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Without a shred of evidence for the flood, you simply assert a flood and different atmospheric conditions because not doing so means admitting you are
Well, he is close to a testable scientific hypothesis. Nothing wrong with exploring the implications of a hypothesis. He's very likely unaware that hypotheses such as that have been formed, tested, and proved false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 62 of 224 (705649)
08-30-2013 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
08-30-2013 1:27 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
.
Edited by JonF, : Damn mouse randomly double-clicks and double posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 63 of 224 (705654)
08-30-2013 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
08-30-2013 8:03 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Percy writes:
Percy writes:
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Baumgardner.
It sure is. He's an Electrical Engineer who obtained a PhD in Geophysics and tells untruths about basic geology.
Percy writes:
He's published more in the peer-reviewed literature than probably any other creationist
Well, I don't think that a creationist writing 'more in peer-reviewed literature' than any other creationist really is something to be proud of. Anyone can start from nothing. And keep on doing nothing.
Percy writes:
He really has no excuse, and particularly not lack of talent or knowledge, for his creationist efforts.
Yes, he does tell untruths about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 8:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 9:53 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 64 of 224 (705660)
08-30-2013 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Pressie
08-30-2013 8:54 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Pressie writes:
Percy writes:
Percy writes:
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Baumgardner.
It sure is. He's an Electrical Engineer who obtained a PhD in Geophysics and tells untruths about basic geology.
You concluded with, "Not much training in Geology at all." The overall result was a characterization of Baumgardner as not having the necessary training and not being knowledgeable about geology, and I don't believe that's accurate. I think he's extremely well trained and knowledgeable. His success in publishing in the peer-reviewed literature where some of his better papers have collected a fair number of citations reflects this.
If we're going to be the side that embraces truth and accuracy then we have to give our rivals their due.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 8:54 AM Pressie has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 65 of 224 (705758)
09-01-2013 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
08-29-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
You are wrong.
The calibration curve I explained in a previous post takes a known event in the past (a tree ring, a varve, etc.) and radiocarbon dates it.
If that known event and the radiocarbon date do not agree, then we can apply a correction to the radiocarbon date to make them agree.
They have dated one particular type of tree ring, from standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California, going back some 12,000 years. The recent rings are dated in 1-year increments, while the older ones are dated in 10-year increments.
This produces a curve, which I have included in previous posts. Curves made from other materials are in close agreement. The maximum correction that is needed going back some 50,000 years is about 10 or 11%.
What this curve does is correct for the atmospheric fluctuations in C14 levels--no matter their cause!
So your question or objection is unfounded.
Thanks everyone for explaining about the calibration.
Suddenly the discussion in another thread about Rohl's revised chronology becomes highly relevant, because if carbon dating has been calibrated against incorrect recent historical dates, the extent of the carbon effect could be exponentially overemphasized for the earlier dates.
As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement. I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.
Varves are often mistaken as annual, when there is a possible tidal development. Lake Suigetsu is one example where on closer analysis the varves are more obviously tidal in nature. They were formed mainly by diatom blooms, some diatoms are freshwater diatoms, sensitive to salinity. Until a few hundred years ago, these lakes were mainly freshwater, but being so close to the ocean would have been affected by rising salinity every spring tide. The ~50 000 years of varves should quite simply be divided by 12.2 to reflect the 12 spring tides a year.
As for dendrochronolgy, the concept is often cited, but no convincing argument has been put forward for those periods when an overlap of ring sequences is not easily matched between trees. ie easy to make mistakes. Hoping someone can post a convincing set of data to show the reliability of dendrochronology. Also taking into account some trees show two rings per year if there are two rainfall seasons.
Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:45 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 2:18 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:14 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 66 of 224 (705760)
09-01-2013 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 9:07 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Suddenly the discussion in another thread about Rohl's revised chronology becomes highly relevant, because if carbon dating has been calibrated against incorrect recent historical dates, the extent of the carbon effect could be exponentially overemphasized for the earlier dates.
Radiocarbon dates are calibrated against items of known age. Your objection about this Rohl fellow means nothing, as you would know if you had studied the literature dealing with calibration.
As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement.
Sorry, wrong. Your "it is possible" means nothing unless backed up by some facts. You have presented no facts.
I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.
From your responses, you couldn't see evidence if it contradicted your a priori beliefs, no matter what the evidence.
Varves are often mistaken as annual, when there is a possible tidal development. Lake Suigetsu is one example where on closer analysis the varves are more obviously tidal in nature. They were formed mainly by diatom blooms, some diatoms are freshwater diatoms, sensitive to salinity. Until a few hundred years ago, these lakes were mainly freshwater, but being so close to the ocean would have been affected by rising salinity every spring tide. The ~50 000 years of varves should quite simply be divided by 12.2 to reflect the 12 spring tides a year.
Do you have any cite for this other than creationist literature? Otherwise, your argument is another "what if" that means nothing.
As for dendrochronolgy, the concept is often cited, but no convincing argument has been put forward for those periods when an overlap of ring sequences is not easily matched between trees. ie easy to make mistakes unless someone can post a convincing set of data.
So, your argument against dendrochronology rests on "they might have made mistakes?" That's it? Another "what if." Means nothing.
You are grasping at straws to keep your belief in ancient tribal myths alive in the face of clear evidence that disproves them. You have no real evidence, but just keep coming up with endless "what ifs," as if those "what ifs" were some form of evidence disproving what science has documented. (They aren't.)
Sadly, you remind me of this fellow:

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:13 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 72 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:27 AM Coyote has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 67 of 224 (705768)
09-02-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 9:07 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
quote:
Suddenly the discussion in another thread about Rohl's revised chronology becomes highly relevant, because if carbon dating has been calibrated against incorrect recent historical dates, the extent of the carbon effect could be exponentially overemphasized for the earlier dates.
That's really desperate clutching at straws there. What makes you think that Rohl's ideas are even relevant ?
quote:
As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement.
Is it ? Are you REALLY going to stoop to conspiracy theories ?
quote:
I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.
Probably because you dismiss them out of hand at the slightest excuse.
quote:
Varves are often mistaken as annual, when there is a possible tidal development. Lake Suigetsu is one example where on closer analysis the varves are more obviously tidal in nature. They were formed mainly by diatom blooms, some diatoms are freshwater diatoms, sensitive to salinity. Until a few hundred years ago, these lakes were mainly freshwater, but being so close to the ocean would have been affected by rising salinity every spring tide. The ~50 000 years of varves should quite simply be divided by 12.2 to reflect the 12 spring tides a year.
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that. And explain how it's even possible given the results of the study (is it really plausible that ALL carbon dates are wrong by a factor of 12.2 ?). Don't forget to deal with the other data used as cross-checks. I don't think that Lake Soppensee is likely to be tidal !
Obviously you haven't thought about it, you're just thoughtlessly throwing out an excuse without even considering whether it could reasonably be true.
quote:
As for dendrochronolgy, the concept is often cited, but no convincing argument has been put forward for those periods when an overlap of ring sequences is not easily matched between trees. ie easy to make mistakes. Hoping someone can post a convincing set of data to show the reliability of dendrochronology. Also taking into account some trees show two rings per year if there are two rainfall seasons.
And more clutching at straws. Even under your assumptions C14 dating should work as a RELATIVE dating system, so we can be reasonably sure of any sequences used in C14 calibration. Any major errors should be obvious.
Occasionally producing 2 rings a year is hardly a big enough problem if you are trying to argue that the dates are wrong by a factor of 12! That should be obvious.
This brings me to the difference between scientists and cranks. Cranks assume that they are unquestionably right and look for excuses to declare that they are right (and even there they are careless). Scientists try to see the whole picture and understand what is going on. This is why science is so often right and cranks are so often wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 224 (705793)
09-02-2013 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
08-29-2013 10:10 AM


You need errors of hundreds of percent before the ages would become acceptable to you.
The required error would have to be at least 800 percent. That would be enough to allow those cave paintings in France and Spain to be post flood. Because they surely could not have survived any world wide flood.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-29-2013 10:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:31 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 224 (705794)
09-02-2013 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
08-29-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I thought I would throw in a verification of Carbon dating that I came across today in my reading.
quote:
One of the most striking examples of different dating methods confirming each other is Stonehenge. C-14 dates show that Stonehenge was gradually built over the period from 1900 BC to 1500 BC, long before the Druids, who claimed Stonehenge as their creation, came to England.
Astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon (for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer). Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C-14 dates.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:45 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:23 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 70 of 224 (705799)
09-02-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
09-01-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Radiocarbon dates are calibrated against items of known age. Your objection about this Rohl fellow means nothing, as you would know if you had studied the literature dealing with calibration.
Which particular items? Can you post a link or excerpt so I can see if Rohl's revised dating would be relevant?
Sorry, wrong. Your "it is possible" means nothing unless backed up by some facts. You have presented no facts.
Fair enough. Please present your evidence that carbon dating has been calibrated to other specific known historical dates. Once you have presented that evidence I will see if it has been cherry picked.
Do you have any cite for this other than creationist literature? Otherwise, your argument is another "what if" that means nothing
I never consulted creationist literature at all. These lakes are all very close to the sea, look at the pictures:
http://www.env.go.jp/...d/pamph/ramsarpamphen/mikatagoko.pdf
Saltwater intrusion - Wikipedia
Groundwater intrusion is a common occurrence along coastlines, and owing to Lake Suigetsu's proximity to large bodies of saltwater its highly unlikely it was unaffected by the rising marine water table during spring tides.
http://www.phycologia.org/...s/10.2216/i0031-8884-42-3-292.1
Stephanodiscus populations were studied from a sediment core from Lake Suigetsu, central Japan. The cells were assignable to two modern freshwater species, S. suzukii and S. pseudosuzukii,
This study shows that freshwater diatoms are susceptible to salinity changes (one point they are proving is that diatom shells can be a good indicator of past salinity levels)
Error 404 | NDSU
Those diatom layers were assumed to be annual, but the studies do not incorporate an explanation for brackish water contamination during spring tides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 71 of 224 (705800)
09-02-2013 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 6:03 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon (for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer). Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C-14 dates.
Interesting stuff, but hardly gaining widespread acceptance.
Stonehenge | Gerald S. Hawkins | The New York Review of Books
Rohl's revised chronology is however gaining a foothold, albeit slowly. Its very difficult to argue against his conclusions, because he highlights obvious errors in current chronology, and these are easily understandable to the layman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 6:03 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 72 of 224 (705802)
09-02-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
09-01-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
So, your argument against dendrochronology rests on "they might have made mistakes?" That's it? Another "what if." Means nothing.
You are grasping at straws to keep your belief in ancient tribal myths alive in the face of clear evidence that disproves them. You have no real evidence, but just keep coming up with endless "what ifs," as if those "what ifs" were some form of evidence disproving what science has documented. (They aren't.)
If you don't post supporting evidence for radiocarbon dating being calibrated against dendrochronology I will regard your point as unverified. You brought it up to defend carbon dating as accurately calibrated, now kindly post your evidence of the relevance of dendrochronology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2013 11:10 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 73 of 224 (705803)
09-02-2013 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 5:58 AM


The required error would have to be at least 800 percent. That would be enough to allow those cave paintings in France and Spain to be post flood. Because they surely could not have survived any world wide flood.
Could you kindly post your evidence for this comment? A small error in calibration in recent history (eg 300 year error) can effect the calibration formulas which in turn can effect dates exponentially. Carbon 14 is only found in small traces, you need to be extremely accurate on the traces of carbon 14 found in the 2000 BC to 4000 BC era to then accurately apply a formula to small traces of carbon in much earlier periods.
(exponential effect)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 10:34 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 74 of 224 (705804)
09-02-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Fair enough. Please present your evidence that carbon dating has been calibrated to other specific known historical dates. Once you have presented that evidence I will see if it has been cherry picked.
A few calibrations against historical dates have been done. Almost all of carbon dating's calibration is done against other methods of dating the same samples, notably dendrochronology, varves, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms, δ[sup]18[/sup]O in ice cores. These other methods are all consilient; they give the same results to within a small margin of error. If you want to claim that varves aren't annual, you need to explain why dendrochronology and U-Th dating and δ[sup]18[/sup]O agree with it. And the same for all the methods. Given the consilience the simplest explanation is that the dating methods are all measuring the same thing, real time elapsed.
If you want to proffer another explanation, you must explain the consilience.
As for the data, you can have as much as you want from Radiocarbon vol 51 no 4 and IntCal09 Supplemental Data.
You should also look at Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1996 Progress Report

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 9:00 AM JonF has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 75 of 224 (705805)
09-02-2013 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
09-02-2013 2:18 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that. And explain how it's even possible given the results of the study (is it really plausible that ALL carbon dates are wrong by a factor of 12.2 ?). Don't forget to deal with the other data used as cross-checks. I don't think that Lake Soppensee is likely to be tidal !
Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual? Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....??
You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves. You cannot use carbon dating to verify carbon dating, that makes no sense. Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 2:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:40 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 1:24 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024