Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Percy, How haven't I addressed correlations, going back 4,350 years to the biblical flood, if varves are being laid down one or two per season, like some trees(not all trees)(some trees have a continuous growth ring in the tropics), for the last 4,350 years would not expect there not to be some similarities, just not sure your correlations extend beyond that, due to the flood sediments creating hundreds of thousands of varves, and not convinced storms don't at times affect varves, more than one per season, still too many problems with C-14 dating, to satisfy you even got the correct years for varves, all tree ring correlations is get you to jive a bit with tree rings in some situations, which should be expected, so you can adjust you calibrations accordingly, though found it interesting that you placed the glaciers approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years past, so its well within the error for your correlations to be a testimony the glaciers pleistocene extinction supporting the biblical deluge, happening approximately 4,350 years, etc...Heres an explanation that C-14 isn't decaying proportionally as one goes deeper into the sediments, etc...How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating? Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodRadiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result. Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.

Plant material is nitrogen fixing, and would have lots of nitrogen in the original matter, plus the decay process for Carbon-14 is that one of its neutrons spontaneously breaks down into a proton, and electron (beta particle) and an electron antineutrino. This is known as Beta Minus decay: (image source from Jefferson Lab website - Glossary Term - Beta Decay)So there would be an abundance of Nitrogen in the samples that could be turned into C-14 with the right impetus.Also from Jefferson Lab website (It's Elemental - The Element Thorium) the isotopes of Thorium decay by alpha decay (2 protons + 2 neutrons), Beta Minus decay (see above), electron capture, spontaneous fission and some other curious methods.Under the right conditions ... N-14 plus Beta Minus Decay = C-14Note again the word you seem to be having the most trouble with: correlation.Again, from the article by Kathleen Hunt (Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits): (bold mine for emphasis)Perhaps the problem is understanding the word correlation. From dictionsary.com: I repeat ...
Fossil Wood C-14: invalid dating due to mineral contamination
Coal C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Oil C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Correlations: not answered
Balls in your court ... still.Enjoy.

---

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

If thorium is donating neutrons and protons, then shouldn't the trending show C-14 isn't accelerating in age faster than what the decay rates predict, as you go deeper into the earth, if the flood didn't happen shouldn't the C-14 be aging at a proportional rate as one goes deeper, too me this correlates that thorium isn't doing what Kathleen Hunt says, but it sure sounded good, but its not being collaborated in the natural, etc...

This is getting to be more and more pure gibberish. Perhaps you should ask questions and stop making up strings of words which aren't connected to reality.If you can't explain the correlations then, I think, you have reached the end of the line. You may simply state that you don't know and drop the subject. You can tell us that you decided long ago not to believe anything that contradicts the lies that you have been told. Just say so and move on.

But you're unsure because you're not familiar with the data. It isn't that you've looked at the data and found it inconclusive. It's because you don't yet understand it. For example, you say: What we've described for you is not chance similarities. The same pattern of ¹⁴C changes is seen in varves and tree rings, and they correlate with the pattern of climatic changes recorded in glacial layers. This is because each of the thousands of varve layers, tree rings and glacial layers happened at the same time during the same year. Makes perfect, logical sense and is consistent with what is happening today. The tree rings and lake varves formed this year will record the current ¹⁴C level, just as they have done for tens of thousands of years (and, of course, for much longer, but ¹⁴C dating isn't much good past 50,000 years), and they will correlate with the glacial layers laid down this year (if any, since we seem to be in a global warming trend).You, on the other hand, say they correlate by chance, even though they are due to unconnected random events like storms and local climatic conditions, and even though happened at different times and at different rates. That such random unconnected events could produce the observed correlations has a probability very close to zero. I think it's been explained many times now that a varve layer consists of sublayers that differ according to season and so describe a pattern. Sediments layed down suddenly in a storm deposit according to size and density, not according to season, and each varve layer consists of the exact same sublayers repeated year after year that could not have happened in a storm, and that we observe happening today. Here are the types of layers laid down in a varve during the year (this information is from one of the links in an earlier message):

• Mineral-rich deposits in the spring because of inrushing water from the winter melt in streams.
  ​
• As spring moves into summer, different pollen types in an order that corresponds to the order that these pollens emerge during the growing system (yet another correlation).
  ​
• As fall moves into winter more of the material is organic.

I think I agree with RAZD. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word correlation. If you roll two dice, they're uncorrelated. If you repeatedly roll the dice, the number that comes up on one will have no correspondence to the number that comes up on the other. But if when you roll the dice the same number keeps coming up on both dice, then they are correlated. This doesn't happen by chance. Even if you can't figure how this is happening, you still know it isn't just dumb luck and that the dice are in some way connected, i.e., correlated. Sorry, I couldn't make sense of this, too many commas. Could you try again, perhaps with sentences this time? The actual link to the page containing your Walt Brown quote is In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - FAQ2.html. Perhaps you could be more specific next time? There is no truth to this. Walt Brown's single citation in this passage is this: Here's a link to the paper: Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...This is the first sentence: This isn't a scientific paper, it's a religious apologetic pretending to be science. It wasn't published in a science journal, but at the Geoscience Research Institute's website ("Integrating Science and Faith"). The institute itself is affiliated with Loma Linda University, a 7th Day Adventist institution.Is there any way to persuade you to use sentences and paragraphs? I feel like I'm deciphering code.--Percy

I agree with Nosy, your post reads like gibberish, but I don't think you've been provided very clear information. Maybe I can make a little sense out of this: You must have been absent the day they covered punctuation in school. I think you may be thinking of Walt Brown's claim that ¹⁴C ages increase exponentially with depth. First, Walt Brown's claim is false. ¹⁴C ages do not increase exponentially with depth. Second, I think thorium may have originally been mentioned in this thread as a contributor to trace amounts of ¹⁴C in coal (which are ancient deposits), and in conjunction with higher levels of radioactive materials. Walt Brown was writing not about coal, but about datable organic materials, and there isn't normally enough uranium-thorium in old organic material like dead plants to affect dating.Perhaps you could try again, or maybe follow Nosy's suggestion of asking questions?--Percy

What the data is showing is that anomalous C-14 dates correlate with radioactivity, not depth, not proportional to age. All that it shows is that anomalous C-14 dates for coal and oil are caused by radiation. I suspect that there will be (if there have not already been) actual experiments by scientists to determine the rates involved, and going back to the article by Hunt again: (carbon 14 reference changed to C-14 again for consistency, the abstracts are listed in the Hunt article, the number shown here as 1e-22 was changed from the original format in the article of "10 to the power -22")Note that the scientists are concerned with determining why the anomalies are present, and this would be like someone in your position being concerned with why all the different methods correlate to each other on an annual basis and on a major climate trend basis.Also note that the anomalous levels detected are near the limits of current methods at a point where very little additional C-14 would cause a major anomaly in dating of very old specimens -- if there is a constant background radiation induced level of C-14 it will show up in all specimens to different degrees. The formula for radioactive decay used for carbon-14 dating is: where t is the calculated age, 5730 is the half-life of C-14, ln is the natural logarithm function, and Nf/No is the ratio of C-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue.Basic math allows us to calculate that a dating shift from 300 million years ago to 40,000 years ago would require addition or conversion of 0.8% of the regular carbon to C-14, whereas a similar amount of additional C-14 in, say, a 3000 year old (historical) specimen would result in a shift of only 3.1% (younger) in dating because of the exponential formulas involved. If the specimen being measured is actually 40,000 years old and it has the additional radiation induced C-14 levels (ie double the C-14 it should have) the age error is 14.3% younger. Thus this effect is only significant for very old specimens, particularly those beyond the valid dating range (such as those specimens used by creatortionistas).Note finally that there were no anomalies with the Lake Suigetsu specimens. The cores go to such depths of alternating sediments that there is no possibility of radiation induced anomalies, ergo the dates derived from C-14 are accurate, as are the layers counted to match the C-14 dates and the correlations of them to the other dating methods for both age and climate patterns.I have correlations, you don't.Enjoy.

---

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

Thank you for the actual Brown link. I love the graph with the notation: This statement alone shows the Brown is engaging in bogus science, as there would also be a proportional "dilution" of normal carbon by the same mechanism, and the ratio would be unchanged -- and the item of interest is the ratio ... the man is lying and smiling while he does so.Another way to present the correlation dilemma for whatever to consider:Let us suppose that the recorded patterns of temperature and precipitation for this year are measured by three different machines in a field using totally different systems to measure them ... how do you explain the matching of results without the actual weather patterns being present? We are talking that level of correlation of climate and age for the various systems to independently arrive at the same data, and not for one year but thousands of years.

---

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

Well, yes and no. The first sentence of the second paragaph is "The purpose of this presentation is to acquaint ORIGINS readers with a more extensive and more rigorous investigation reported in Radiocarbon (Brown 1986)." which was published in a peer-reviewed and well-known journal.I'm not much of an expert on radiocarbon dating, and I don't have easy access to the Radiocarbon article. However, some questions arise:There's almost no mention of climate in the Origins article, yet climate is important enough to be in the title of the Radiocarbon article. Why?In the analysis section he writes "Each set of C-14 age versus depth data in the recent investigation was analyzed using cubic regression for a smooth curve representation of the average data trend. The analysis was limited to profiles which were described by at least 7 data pairs, with the exception of 3 continental sediment and 2 peat profiles, each of which has 6 well-spaced, precisely determined data points. Profiles for which a cubic regression with a Coefficient of Determination (CRCD) of at least 0.70 could not be obtained were not included in the group analysis. Six continental sediment and 5 soil profiles failed to meet the 0.70 CRCD criterion. Sixteen continental sediment, 5 soil, and 9 peat profiles that met the 0.70 CRCD criterion were rejected on the basis of clear evidence that the feature had been disturbed during or since emplacement, or because the data range was too restricted to establish adequately a representative trend. Of the profiles, 170 sediment, 114 peat, and 25 soil survived these restrictions." This isn't detailed enough; the raw data should be available, and more plots similar to Figure 1 should be presented.I question whether C-14 ages of deep ocean sediment is meaningful; C-14 dating is based on the supposition that the material was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when it was laid down.I wonder about where all the data came from; the references themselves don't seem to indicate.In the discussion, he says "The data represented in Figures 2-5 clearly establish a global tendency for C-14 age increment per unit of depth to increase with depth ..." This is flat-out wrong: Figures 2-4 indicate such a trend, FIgure 5 (peat) does not. He appears to ascribe the peat "anomaly" to compaction, but doesn't explain why he would expect compaction to result in a linear and horizontal fit line.It would be really interesting to see what the Radiocarbon paper says ... I suspect some cherry-picking of the data.

If you believe you have correlations, why not write a book with thousands of pictures, in laymans terms, so people can cipher. If you write that book, document everything, include documentation of sediment pods put in the bottom of your kettle lake (with todays technology, you could have a robotic cam), documenting if annual sediments are actually being deposited, never good to assume things(though the odds are somethings happening. Without ciphering pictures or something, its hard to cipher. With that I'll take that break, I'm just going to agree to disagee. If you believe this strongly, hopefully you'll write that book, in laymans terms, so people can cipher whatever correlations your seeing, in the natural, and see if they have any merit, over 4,350 years ago, too many questions, to take your word for it, not that there are not going to be similarities for the last 4,350 years, and questions on the accuracy of the dating methods as one goes deeper into the varve layer's.P.S. In respect to coal, why would not coal be the more likely candidate to be the one donating neutrons, thorium a precurser to lead, or something like that, meaning C-14 is an unstable isotope, would think thorium would grab any neutrons floating around in the leachate, converting thorium into lead, etc....

marine C-14 is usually considered unreliable due to resevoir problems -- too much old carbon available

---

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

The book is post #1, already written in laymans's terms. If I did put that "pod" out there in the middle of the lake and verified that one varve = one year, your next critique would be that I could not show that it was so for the previous year, the moveable goalpost of the unwilling to concede a point. The point is made that there is a correlation of those varves with historical data that proves they are annual layers on a scale well beyond the capacity of a single "pod test" to begin to do.As to your latest attempt at baffola: It's a simple matter of half life ... the C-14 'clock' is run-down and Thorium 'clock' is still ticking ... if not getting rewound.C-14 half life = 5,730 years
Th-230 half life = 75,400 years
U-234 half life = 248,000 years and the decay product is .... Th-230Uranium also decays by a number if different procedures, among them alpha decay (2 protons + 2 neutrons), Beta Minus decay, electron capture, spontaneous fission and some other curious methods (sound familiar?).Face it: when it comes to discrediting C-14 dating with coal and oil samples, that dog just won't hunt.Enjoy.

---

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

Interesting articles about the truth about snow varves. I wasn't going to post on this thread, but these articles were just too good. I particularly thought his conclusion interesting. How does contradictions support the accuracy of all these dating methods, etc...http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/ice9
http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/ice4Why should temperature swings exist only in the
icecap, showing no corresponding swings in the land varves, if
the ice core record is accurate? These swings should be found in
both North American and European varves, but they do not exist.
This means that the ice core record is wrong and cannot be
relied upon to explain ancient weather patterns.CONCLUSIONIn retrospect, we find that the tree ring record is
contradicted by the coral record, which is contradicted by the
deep-sea tropical core record, which, outside the tropics, is
contradicted by the Devil's Hole core record. Now the ice record
is contradicted by the North American varve record...and all of
this proves the accuracy of all of these dating methods?---------------------------------------------------------------Page not found – Creation In The CrossfireVARVES: PROBLEMS FOR STANDARD GEOCHRONOLOGY
By Kurt HowardLambert and Hs (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-13-2004]

So now you believe that Venus collided with the earth? ahahahaaaaaAgain, creatortionistas will look for evidence that is bad not to find out why it is bad but to use it because it is bad (and they know it)http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm In other words they know that Walensee is not an annual varve system.This is the diagram:
Fix size of image. --AdminPretty easy to see the differences, and this doesn't even address the fact that these are {clay\silt} varves whereas the ones on Lake Suigetsu are {diatom\silt} varves.The correlations .... still not answered ...[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-14-2004][This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-14-2004][This message has been edited by Admin, 04-14-2004]

---

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

Wow! Ted Holden! The loon's loon! The man who makes Velikovsky look mainstream!Next thing you'll be posting Ed Conrad's stuff.whatever, you have no common sense or ability to evaluate the world.