Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 306 (165750)
12-06-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheLiteralist
12-06-2004 6:41 PM


Re: B.P. ?
B.P. = Before Present = ago.
cal. yr B.P. = calendar years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-06-2004 6:41 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-06-2004 6:57 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 22 of 306 (166757)
12-09-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dpardo
12-09-2004 8:42 PM


See also Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (by a creationist who was once affiliated with the ICR) and INTRODUCTION ABOUT DENDROCHRONOLOGY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dpardo, posted 12-09-2004 8:42 PM dpardo has not replied

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


Message 79 of 306 (168206)
12-14-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by johnfolton
12-14-2004 4:29 PM


Re: Speculations
Most of your questions make no sense ... they are based on misunderstandings and incorrect sssumptions.
The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form,
No. Turbidites and varves settle very differently.
Do you have studies showing one annual varve forming consistently per year
Yes.
Is this kettle lake correlations something new?
New relative to what? Much newer than Newton's laws, much older than the discovery of Flores man.
so are you basing your correlations only on core correlation data on C-14?
No.
and not actual documented annual varves being deposited in controlled studies?
Documented annual varves deposited in controlloed studies are one of the many lines of evidence that lead to our conclusions.
I'm just making a point that in lake Suigetsu past multitudes of varves could of been laid down in very short amounts of time.
No, they could not have been ... unless you just want to make up stories that are based on your hopes rather than evidence, and that have no correlation to reality. You have not addressed the multiple reasons why they are annual.
like is it diluted in water
C-14 and C-12 are dissolved in water,usually in the form of carbon dioxide but also in other molecules.
would it be affecting sea creatures ages differently than say a tree ring?
Sea creatures are typically not suitable for carbon dating, because their sources of carbon are often not in equilibrium with the current atmospheric concentrations. However, this is irrelevant to the current discussion.
If you error consistently would that not explain different kettle lakes layers correlating with one another
Yes but irrelevant. If pigs had wings then they could fly. If you have a proposed source of consistent error let's hear it. Note that real scientists are constantly trying to falsify their conclusions, and lots of people that are smarter than you or me and know a lot more about the subject have tried to find consistent errors and failed. That doesn't mean a consistent error is impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.
If the same natural processes happened to all, would not an error proportionally affect all?
Yes, but irrelevant; the same natural processes (that affect varves) don't happen everywhere imultaneoulsy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2004 4:29 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2004 5:26 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 118 of 306 (169174)
12-16-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by johnfolton
12-16-2004 8:55 PM


Re: Speculations
Your the chemists, do you have documentation that C-14 and C-12 bond the same way in the production of oil in respect to hydrogen bonds, and or other chemical bonds?
No chemist required; high school chemistry is probably enough, one course of college chemistry is defintely enough. C-14 and C-12 differ only in the nucleus. The nucleus is not involved in any chemical bonding or mechanical interaction or electronic interaction; the nucleus is too well shielded by electrons. C-14 is very slightly heavier than C-12, so a whole bunch of high speed centrifuges, stacked one after the other, might be able to change the C-14 to C-12 ratio of a sample. Here's a picture of a facility that does that for uranium:
The centrifuge plant is the dark rectangular buildings. Here's a few of the many, many, many centrifuges:
This sort of thing does not occur in nature; for all chemical and mechanical and electronic interactions C-14 is insignificantly different from C-12, and the effect of such interactions on the C-14/C-12 ratio is well understood.
Isotope:
"Although isotopes exhibit nearly identical electronic and chemical behavior, their nuclear behavior varies dramatically."
Making stuff up without any understanding whatsoever leads to errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2004 8:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2004 10:47 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 119 of 306 (169175)
12-16-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by johnfolton
12-16-2004 8:25 PM


Re: Speculations
The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.
Yup, everybody knows that and agrees.
However, you seem tho think that the bacteria ate only C-14. That's false. They ate C-14 and C-12 in the ratio found in the kerogen. The scientists mesured the C-14/C-12 ratio in the bacteria, and it was the same as the C-14/C-12 ratio in the kerogen. Just as expected by mainstream science, and just the type of behavior that makes carbon dating valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2004 8:25 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 143 of 306 (169488)
12-17-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
12-17-2004 2:12 PM


Re: What Craig Said
Oh, I can easily think of something else he could mean, and I think it's what he does mean:
"Since da Bible done tol' me that the Earth is young, something, somewhere, somehow, must be wrong with carbon dating, and maybe if I string enough randomly words together I can convince dese guys".
Craig doesn't have any idea of how carbon dating works, how calibration works, how correlations work, how chemistry woks, or what would make the samples appear older or younger. He doesn't realize that adding 14C would make samples appear older.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 2:12 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by dpardo, posted 12-17-2004 5:19 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 177 of 306 (169752)
12-18-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by johnfolton
12-18-2004 1:24 AM


Re: What Craig Said
You ice core varves just don't wash, read the Ice-bound plane flies again!
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Ice-bound plane flies again!
‘Glacier Girl’ reminds us that it doesn’t take millions of years to form deep layers of ice
by Carl Wieland
The fascinating news that one of these magnificent ‘planes in ice’ is actually flying again brings to mind their whole amazing story. It is a powerful, real-life testimony against the widespread belief that it takes vast timespans to lay down thick layers of ice.
Sigh. Typical creationist; immediately buys into any loony idea that supports his preconceptions, without any critical thinking. Or any other kind of thinking.
The plane landed and was buried in a coastal area, where there's lots more snow each year than there is in the central areas where the ice cores are taken. See Creationist Comedy.
And, of course, we don't assume anything about the amount of snowfall per year; we can distinguish annual layers in the ice, using several different and independent methods, and known markers (such as volcanic ash from known eruptions) show up just where we'd expect them to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by johnfolton, posted 12-18-2004 1:24 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 180 of 306 (169782)
12-18-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
12-18-2004 7:39 PM


Re: What Craig HASN'T Said
The correlations are the problem for any assault on the age of the earth calculations from these annual event counting methods: it is one thing to question the method and nitpick away with fantastic fantasy scenarios, but they fail to provide any reason for the CORRELATIONS to appear as they do for all these methods in all these places.
And, of course, the correlations disprove all the YEC "what if ..." scenarios.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2004 7:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2004 9:06 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 202 of 306 (172497)
12-31-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by TheLiteralist
12-31-2004 4:12 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-31-2004 4:12 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

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


Message 204 of 306 (172572)
12-31-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by NosyNed
12-31-2004 4:23 PM


Re: Sceptism and Correlations
You may not have read about it yet but the ice layers are separated by measureing isotopic abundances in the layers.
There'a a good list of the methods used right here, in Greenland Ice Cores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 12-31-2004 4:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2004 6:39 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 257 of 306 (254824)
10-25-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by roxrkool
10-25-2005 8:53 PM


Re: C14 in diamonds
The AGU poster is at Error | The Institute for Creation Research. Supposedly there's mre detail in Baumgardner, J.R., S.A. Austin, D.R. Humphreys, and A.A. Snelling, Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth Creation-Flood model, Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Edited by Robert L. Ivey, Jr., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August, 2003, pp. 127-142, but that's not on the Web. Ther used to be a couple of semi-scientific papers on the Web but they've gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by roxrkool, posted 10-25-2005 8:53 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by roxrkool, posted 10-26-2005 12:05 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 6:48 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 263 of 306 (254912)
10-26-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
10-26-2005 6:48 AM


Re: creatortionistas?
Austin also managed to fudge a false isochron for the Grand Canyon Plateau lava flows. See A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 6:48 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 293 of 306 (263943)
11-28-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
11-15-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
Dalrymple's "The Age of the Earth" is about what it says; the age of the Earth. He starts with a discussion of the history of attempts to estimate or measure the age of the Earth, covers basic radioactivity theory, then how particular radioisotope methods work (but only those that are useful for measurement of ages on the order of billions of years, so he does not cover 14C dating or disequilibrium dating), goes through long discussions geology and dating of the oldest rocks found on Earth (and here the 1991 publication date is a shame; he doesn't cover the Great Slave Lake rocks that are the current age champions, or the Jack Hills zircons that are the oldest terrestrial minerals found to date, 'cause they're post-1991), has lots of material on the oldest lunar rocks and meteorites, then peaks with a whole chapter on Pb-Pb dating from which we derive the 4.55 billion year age of the Earth, and winds down with discussions of related but less precise methods (such as the absence of short-half-life radionuclides from the Earth). So there's lots of interesting and important material in it, but not much about cross-corellation with non-radiometric methods (but there's lots on cross-corellation of different radiometric methods).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 8:52 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2005 9:35 PM JonF has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024