|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age of mankind, dating, and the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2686 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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 I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates. Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology. Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact. The consilience is simply cherry picking. Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis. This would an understandable approach, but unfortunately is not very scientific. And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Hi Mindspawn,
Your arguments are all almost self-evidently wrong, and one of them makes no sense whatsoever. They require only the barest amount of evidence to rebut, and much of that evidence has already been presented in this thread, leading me to wonder whether there's a problem in understanding, or if maybe you're just trying to waste as many people's time as possible. Summarizing your arguments, the historical dates could have been incorrect, the dating methods chosen for calibration could have been cherry picked, the varve layers could have been deposited 12 times a year instead of once, and mistakes could have been made in dendrochronology. Do you have evidence that any of these coulda-woulda-shoulda's have ever happened? Any evidence of incorrect historical dates? Any evidence of dating methods being cherry picked? Any evidence of varve layer deposition 12 times in a single year ever? Any evidence of mistakes in dencrochronology? Since to you these incredibly poor arguments must have seemed cogent and effective, and since you made them in the face of sufficient evidence showing them wrong, it seems a pretty sure bet you don't comprehend the information you've been provided. There's not much point explaining evidence to someone who thinks "You could be wrong" is legitimate rebuttal. You, too, could be wrong. Everyone could be wrong. That's what evidence is for, to tell the difference between who's right and who's wrong, but you don't seem to understand that. Anyway, against my best instincts I'm going to address you're "arguments", which I'll paraphrase.
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Correct the value of the distance above sea level of the average depth of Lake Suigetsu, 34 => 20. Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
mindspawn writes: Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual? I can understand the reluctance to research arguments you mistrust, but you must take at least some of the initiative. If we have to spoonfeed you data that you continually question with "but it could be wrong" forcing us to present even yet more detailed data, at some point you're going to begin questioning whether the ship's cook might have snuck down to varve storage and contaminated them. Varve layers contain characteristic seasonal data from debris, seeds and pollen. Multiple layers laid down in a single year would not go undetected. If it somehow did go undetected then scads of extra layers per year would be violently in disagreement with radiocarbon dating and other forms of dating and would be detected in that way. These silly objections you keep raising tell me you think scientists must spend no time at verifying and cross-correlating their work, or even that they do no work at all and just make it up. But if you enter "varve dating" into Google Scholar you'll get "about 12,900 results". There is decades and decades and decades of research on varve dating. This is from the Wikipedia article on varves:
Wikipedia writes: An annual layer can be highly visible because the particles washed into the layer in the spring when there is greater flow strength are much coarser than those deposited later in the year. This forms a pair of layersone coarse and one finefor each annual cycle. Varves form only in fresh or brackish water, because the high levels of salt in normal sea water coagulates the clay into coarse grains. Since the saline waters will leave coarse particles all year, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the individual layers in salt waters. You see, this information is out there and very accessible. Why don't you avail yourself of some of it, otherwise you might end up telling us again that salinity changes caused by spring tides causes varve layer formation.
Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....?? Uh, no MindSpawn, we can neither see the irony nor understand the argument. It looks like the beginning of a poorly thought out idea that you couldn't think through to an argument based upon actual evidence.
You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves. Gee, just as I predicted, once again you're telling us about varves being caused by spring tides. The only place the phrase "daily tidal varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message. The only place the phrase "spring tide varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message. The only place the phrase "bi-annual rainfall varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message. The only place the phrase "annual rainfall varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message. You are seriously just making things up.
Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny. All you've been doing is casting unwarranted aspersions, and mighty weak and dopey ones at that. Scrutinizing would mean actually informing yourself about the research, something you have yet to do. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
mindspawn writes: The consilience is simply cherry picking. That's your statement, here's mine: "Mindspawn is simply making this up." Prove me wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
A small error in calibration in recent history (eg 300 year error) can effect the calibration formulas which in turn can effect dates exponentially. You have this notion that the calibration curves are obtained by comparing C-14 measurements to historical events. While that would explain why you think Rohl's chronology has some effect on calibration, that notion does is disabused by the way calibration is done. Your notion is what we used to call a GCE (gross conceptual error) in nuclear power school. In that setting graders actually deducted more points from your exam than could be gained by getting a question completely correct for making such errors. As has been explained to you several times, calibration is done using self dating objects like bristlecone pines and varves, and not by assuming that the some historical event actually happened at some exact date. It is the case that known historical events can be used to check the calibration, but those events are not the basis for calibration. In fact C-14 dating actually raises questions about those assumed dates. The calibration adjustment for dates sufficient to rule out a 6000 year earth is less than 10% anyway. How calibration is really done.Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia quote: In short Egyptian chronology suggested an error, but was not used to correct calibration. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. Here is the overview. Look up the rest of it yourself. Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings Calibration With all of your "what if" objections you are rapidly becoming a waste of our time, particularly because you have shown that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. As per my signature line, your belief is preventing you from learning.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I believe that they chose a lake where annual varves occur. Do you have evidence for anything else ?
quote: The real irony is that you were caught bullshitting and you're trying to bullshit your way out of it. There's a huge difference between the researchers using carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating and using other varve systems as independent checks. The actual calibration is against the varve count.
quote: There is a big difference between scrutiny and inventing bullshit. It is your attempts to dismiss the results that fail to withstand scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates. Wut? The tree ring dates and the conventional dates agree. (The technical term is "consilience".) That is a verification of both. Are you claiming that Rohl's chronology would have come up with a different date than the conventional one? If so, what would be the significance of the mismatch between dendrochronology and Rohl's chronology? Well, it would mean that Rohl's chronology is wrong. (You've tried to handwave consilience away, but it's still the elephant in the room). There's also Jerusalem Tunnel Linked to Bible. They used 14C to date a leaf embedded in the plaster (obviously older than the plaster) and U-Th disequilibrium (one of the techniques used to calibrarte 15C) to date a plaster stalagmite (obviously younger than the tunnel) and bracketed the date the tunnel was built.
The consilience is simply cherry picking. You're awfully sure of yourself. Upon what evidence do you make this determination?
Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology. Yup, that's what we have.
Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact. Really? Do tell. Explain. In detail. With citations.
Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis. As far as anyone can tell, no. And WTF are the "less easily understood sequences"? They're all pretty much the same difficulty.
And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results. True. But there is no doubt on each study. At least no doubt of significance; each might be off by a percent or two. And there's no evidence of scientists discarding studies of any kind. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2686 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I don't believe that Admin meant to exempt you from providing evidence to support YOUR claims. I'll accept your refusal to answer as an admission of the truth of what I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion. The proper way to ignore a post is to not respond to it. I notice that you are ignoring posts that do present arguments backed up by references. There are several posts on this very page tto which you could have responded. But instead you responded to Paul. And despite what admin says, responses are allowed to use logical argument that is based on evidence or argument already posted. For example, a perfectly legitimate post would contain argument pointing out errors in your own logic. And given Percy's notes in this thread noting your propensity to make up stuff, I think it much more likely that Admin's warning was to us about you than vice versa.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
mindspawn writes: Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion. Gee, that doesn't sound familiar, let me take a look... Okay, here's what I said in Message 350 over at the Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? thead:
Admin writes: I have another request: Positions being argued for in the science threads (like this one) should be based upon evidence. You should put forward the evidence that brought you to your position. Positions not based upon evidence should receive no mention. Positions that you believe have evidence but you don't know what that evidence is should also receive no mention. In other words, those with no evidence for what they believe is true should remain on the sidelines. The reason I made that request was so that claims wouldn't be made up. The relevance to this thread is that we think you're making up your claims, for one example, that spring tides can cause lake varves, which you said was the case with Lake Suigetsu. Do you have any evidence of this? Or for any of the other of your claims that I addressed in Message 77? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This is not a lie, but a vast misrepresentation of the truth. Your utter lack of any attempt to debate honestly is truly stunning. Even for a creo. You want people suspended for pointing out that you have manipulated and misrepresented everything you have presented as "evidence". You should be ashamed of yourself. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Hello?
MindSpawn? Are you still here? You probably think we're trying to give you a hard time, but you keep exhibiting a very real and profound error in logic. You apparently believe that, "It is possible that this could have happened," is valid rebuttal. Usually there are many things that might have happened, so we look for evidence of what actually *did* happen. You need evidence of what actually *did* happen. We figure out what happened by finding positive evidence, not by finding evidence against everything else that might have happened. I don't prove I drove all the way to your house by proving I didn't take a plane, bus or taxi. I prove it by pointing to my car in your driveway. If you're still doubtful then I show you it's not a rent-a-car by showing you my car's registration. Proving that everything else that might have happened didn't happen would be a ridiculous exercise, but that's what you keep asking us to do. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You keep asking for more and more evidence, while denying, obfuscating, or ignoring any evidence we provide.
So, here is some evidence. Let's see if you can deal with it without just trying to hand-wave it away. Remember, your credibility (what little you have left) depends on the evidence you provide. Just coming up with "what-ifs" is not evidence. Your religious beliefs are not evidence. ==================== Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt R.M. CLARK & C. RENFREW Abstract: The historical calendar of Ancient Egypt is the only independent chronology for testing the bristlecone pine calibration of the radiocarbon time scale from 3000 to 1800 BC. Here a statistical approach is used to compare the functions relating the Egyptian historical dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates and the bristlecone pine tree-ring dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates, and it is concluded that the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Egypt do not differ significantly from the historical dates in the time period considered, although the errors associated with these preclude a precise comparison. The accord gives qualified support for both systems and invalidates some published objections to the use of a calibrated time scale in prehistoric archaeology. Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt | Nature ==================== Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? An article abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. The concluding paragraph: Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? ==================== Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale V. C. LaMarche Jr. & T. P. Harlan Abstract: An independently developed tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine in the White Mountains, California, provides a basis for testing the accuracy of dendrochronological calibration of the radiocarbon time scale. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings in this species are true annual rings. Internal evidence and cross-chronology comparison indicate that there is no error in calendar dates assigned to wood specimens for comparative radiocarbon analysis, at least back to 3535 B.C. Just a moment...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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024