Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8099 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2014 9:08 AM
194 online now:
Agingone, DWIII, herebedragons, Malcolm, Percy (Admin), purpledawn (AdminPD) (6 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Happy Birthday: Bliyaal
Post Volume:
Total: 733,167 Year: 19,008/28,606 Month: 2,279/2,305 Week: 484/671 Day: 27/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 955 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 256 of 357 (443377)
12-24-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Creationist
12-24-2007 6:28 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
First of all, both the varves and tree rings are used to calibrate carbon-14 so as such they are not independent confirmation of each other.

No -- first the varves and tree rings are matched up, one varve to one ring. Once we do that, then we measure the C14 in organic matter associated with, say, the 10,000th varve, and then measure the C14 with the 10,000th tree ring. No reason why both of these should give the same C14/C12 ratio -- yet they do. Each varve has the same C14/C12 ratio as its associated tree ring. The 12,000th varve gives the same C14 readings as the 12,000th tree ring.

A remarkable coincidence unless each varve and its associated tree ring were formed at the same time, and so incorporated the same ambient CO2 with the same amount of C14.

And why would tree rings and lake varves match up one-to-one so precisely like this? Another amazing coincidence, unless each one really does represent annual events.


"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 6:28 PM Creationist has not yet responded

Lithodid-Man
Member
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 257 of 357 (443400)
12-24-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Creationist
12-24-2007 6:28 PM


Cite your source and use your own words!
Alright Creationist. The whole portion of this post is lifted word for word (some rearranging of sentences and removal of statements like "As a tree physiologist...) from an article by Don Batten at AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
That is, of course, unless you are Don Batten and then I apologize.

That being said, you might want to actually read the article by Yamaguchi yourself and not trust what Batten says that it says. He is not known for honesty. The article is available here: http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBTRR.htm#Vol46

I had to laugh when I read that article and found that C-14 is not mentioned once. The article is showing how error can arise in the statistical analysis of dendrochronology when comparing floating samples (samples lacking known chronologies before and after). The author talks about how to recognize and prevent this when using statistical software on time series data. The dates rejected by the statistical analysis were not rejected because they disagreed with carbon 14 dating, they were rejected because they (in one sample out of 23) gave a date of death as being between 2078 and 2100 AD. Another creotortionist trick by taking a positive find in science and making it sound like a flaw. How many times will these lies have to pointed out before creationists start questioning their sources?


"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 6:28 PM Creationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:57 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 258 of 357 (443404)
12-24-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 8:47 PM


Re: Cite your source and use your own words!
Alright Creationist. The whole portion of this post is lifted word for word (some rearranging of sentences and removal of statements like "As a tree physiologist...) from an article by Don Batten at AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
That is, of course, unless you are Don Batten and then I apologize.

I am not Batten, and I did his use his article. I should have listed it as my source. Sorry.

That being said, you might want to actually read the article by Yamaguchi yourself and not trust what Batten says that it says. He is not known for honesty.

Really? Can you back that up? And I will read what Yamaguchi said, Batten only referenced it.

I had to laugh when I read that article and found that C-14 is not mentioned once.

I don't think Batten implied that it did.

The article is showing how error can arise in the statistical analysis of dendrochronology when comparing floating samples (samples lacking known chronologies before and after).

I'm sure it does, but does it not also say or show that tree ring pattern matches are not unique? That is, after all, what Batten was using the article to show.

The author talks about how to recognize and prevent this when using statistical software on time series data. The dates rejected by the statistical analysis were not rejected because they disagreed with carbon 14 dating, they were rejected because they (in one sample out of 23) gave a date of death as being between 2078 and 2100 AD. Another creotortionist trick by taking a positive find in science and making it sound like a flaw. How many times will these lies have to pointed out before creationists start questioning their sources?

Again, Dr. Batten was not implying that they did. Only that this is one problem with tree ring dating. Again, I apologize for not linking the article, I started out, with someone complaining about linked websites. So, I did not link it. I will do so in the future, since I see it is perfectly alright for uniformitarianists to do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 8:47 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 259 of 357 (443421)
12-24-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Creationist
12-24-2007 6:28 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Thanks, Creationist, for the effort here.

As noted your problem is not just to criticize each different method, that's easy to do with ad hoc explanations, but to actually explain the correlations that occur -- the rest of the evidence. Why do the season data match? Why do the long term climate data match? Why do the 'event' (volcano, little ice age, etc) data match?

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata,

I've dealt with this issue before, and I only need to note these things:

  • he was able to identify all five rings as being false rings without any problem,
  • if he was making a chronology he could deduct 5 years from this tree,
  • he doesn't tell you about missing or partial rings, rings that don't grow for the year in question, or that are incomplete (say from a summer on a mountain top being too cold for growth) and which may be missed by the core, and which would make the trees too young if this effect was not determined,
  • he doesn't tell you how he determined the missing rings, or provide any data from this "research", or a link to where the information could be found, so we also don't know what the %error would be involved if these were counted in error,
  • dendrochronology uses multiple cores from multiple trees from multiple sites to build up a chronology rather than rely on one tree, and reduce these uncertainties and finally
  • he uses intentional mis-direction to talk about a completely different species - in an entirely different subgenus, that grows in a completely different environment, and that has been bred for fast growth by the forest industry - with the stated implication that they are the same tree. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud . Being in the same genus Pinus is not enough to be closely related - Pinus includes all pine trees all over the world, and this includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.
(See Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud, for a more complete critique of the falsehoods, missing information and blatant misinformation of Don Batten in this one article.)

This raises the question, that if what he was telling you was in any way a valid criticism of the science of dendrochronology (which has known about false rings much longer than Don Batten), then why can't he tell you the honest truth? The corollary is why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?

The biggest problem is that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5% (in spite of being from not only a different Genus, but a different Division within the Plant Kingdom). They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios.

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

Hardly the big problem you seem to think. For one thing he is talking about one of three dendrochronologies covering the same time period, for another this information is 6 years out of date - he is using information from IntCal98 and new information from IntCal04 (PDF) shows they have now found samples to complete the dendrochronology without needing to use 14C to place specimens.

Why doesn't Don Batten tell you the truth about the other two dendrochronologies? Why doesn't Don Batten update his information with the new information from IntCal04? Why do creationists need to lie if what they are saying is true? There are even more problems with this that we will get to should you care to confront the issue of correlations.

Again I note that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5%. They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios, a three way correlation.

All this is based on the assumption that one can extrapolate the carbon clock backwards. Conventional carbon 14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that carbon 14 is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. One only has to go as far back as the industrial age to prove this isn't true.

Nope. Not at all. We know that it has been different at different times in the deep past, and we know that it varies on an 11 year sunspot cycle that affects the mechanism that produces 14C in the atmosphere. We make no assumptions at all, but look for evidence for what levels were in the past. This is the whole purpose of IntCal98 and IntCal04.

You can also think of the "carbon-14 age" as just being a mathematical transformation of the actual 14C/12C ratio in specimens, and then all you need to realize is that no two pieces can be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratios. It doesn't matter what the decay rate is now or whether it has been different in the past, this still holds true. This is just a simple truth based on the way 14C gets from the atmosphere into living organisms, especially trees.

Ring patterns are not unique. Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47–54, 1986) recognized this. The best match using statistical tests is often rejected in favor of a less exact match because the exact match is deemed to be incorrect. Why? Because the carbon 14 age may be too far away from the assumed age. So the carbon 14 age is what is used to deem what is acceptable and what is not. No wonder there is corellation! Circular reasoning plain and simple. Then, of course, you have all the problems with the assumptions involved in carbon dating to begin with. So this does not prove your point.

And what has happened since 1986? One thing that has happened is IntCal04 ... and the three tree ring chronologies that do not use 14C dates to place samples ... so this is just outdated information that no longer applies. This is another common way that creationists misrepresent science, by using outdated information that seems to be a problem.

This simple fact is that tree ring dating is more accurate (0.5%) than 14C dating (1%). See if you can think how that can possibly happen if it depends on 14C dating. And even it the error were 10% there would still be a problem for young earth creationists.

First of all, both the varves and tree rings are used to calibrate carbon-14 so as such they are not independent confirmation of each other.

They are independent without calibration arriving at independent measures of ages beyond any YEC fantasy, meanwhile the calibration curve shows the correlation between them. Calibration is used to make the 14C ages more accurate because the annual counting systems are more accurate than the 14C method and are not subject to atmospheric variation. Thus varve & ring counting make 14C dates better than they are without them.

Second, there is a systematic error, where carbon-14 tends to suggest a younger date than indicated by varves and tree ring counts.

Caused by different levels of 14C in the atmosphere back then, so actually the tree and varve data show that those 14C dates are too young without calibration.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)
quote:

Click to enlarge

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

(3)Kitagawa, H., et al., "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production" Science 279, 1187 (1998); DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1187
accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187

That data is from 1998 and the new data since then added to the data above gives us this distribution:


Click to enlarge

Compare the differences -- and the similarities.

When they are normalized for original carbon-14 content, the uniformitarian model would require a loss of atmospheric carbon-14 of 550 % of the current value over the past 30,000 years.

I'd like to know what they mean by normalized and where the 550% number comes from. From what I have seen it is bogus, any bets? Look at those graphs above again -- where's that 550% data?

This trend goes away completely when other varves are included.

Does it? Or does it just make the earth older when the data is corrected for new information?

The real question is how much error is involved rather than the hyperbole of the typical creationist website.

See Message 249

Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and 14C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu:
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
quote:

Notice the correlation with age and depth and with the rate of deposit of the sediments, especially where it changes. The only issue with Lake Suigetsu I see is when they get beyond the level of the diatom layers, at about 37,930 years BP (before 1950, or 35,980 BCE).

Actually the evidence is more consistent with a rapid post Flood increase in carbon-14 and the observed patterns are actually predicted by it.

I'd like to see a "flood model" produce different levels of 14C with each layer it makes that is consistently less 14C with depth on an exponential curve. You have no idea what you are up against here.

If there is actually even one "flood model" that explains varves at all.

How many times do the flaws of carbon 14 dating have to brought up.
quote:
There is one fact ... the proportion of C-14 to C-12 ... It is not in equilibrium.

How many times do the blatant lies of creationists need to be exposed? There will never be an equilibrium because it is produced by cosmic radiation that varies on an 11 year cycle (as well as longer cycles). Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. Any article that starts out stating this is lying to you.

Again, if creationism is true why do creationists need to lie about it? Why do they need to tell such easy to demonstrate lies? Why do they need to base their arguments on lies?

Well established? More faulty assumptions.

Yet no such assumptions are made. Read the articles on the actual measurements of age in the ice cores and tell me where they make those assumptions. You can usually bet that when a creationist website tells you what "uniformitarian scientists" have done that the website is lying to you. Note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

quote:
Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology.
(Wikipedia, 2007)

That is all "uniformitarian scientists" assume -- "that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe" -- there is nothing about uniform rates or processes, nothing about old age. This assumption has also been tested (scientists are like that) and so far there is no reason to think that the physical laws did not apply in the past as they do today.

What is actually done is to find ways to identify ice formed at different times of the year due to the extreme difference between summer (sun, cool) and winter (no sun, very cold) there are physical differences in the ice that is formed. Another thing they can count in the less compressed layers are dust layers during the summer, some of volcanic origin that (surprise) correlates with known historical and prehistorical eruptions. The layers are counted with no previous assumption about age at all. AiG is another site that lies to you.

Don't you wonder why so many creationists sites lie about reality? It seems you can't pick one and find reliable information ... Why can't they just tell you the truth if creationism is true? If what they are saying has any relation to reality they should have no problem with presenting the facts of what science actually does instead of continuously misrepresenting it.

The question for you, now that we have reached this point, and you have run through the standard creationist ad hoc criticisms of various dating methods is: why do they get the same results, the same patterns of climate, the same correlations to volcanic activity, the correlations to radioactive decay curves that are exponential, not linear, how come it all just plain works, both together and apart - the way science says it does?

Another question for you is how you test for truth. Do you compare concepts against evidence or some preconceived concept? Do you check websites for lies or accept them if you "like" what they say?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added graphic

Edited by RAZD, : added time to "at about"


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 6:28 PM Creationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM RAZD has responded

Creationist
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 260 of 357 (443969)
12-27-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by RAZD
12-24-2007 10:34 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Thanks, Creationist, for the effort here.

Well, thank you, for the kind words.

As noted your problem is not just to criticize each different method, that's easy to do with ad hoc explanations

When a method is determined have faults, then it should be examined. That’s the way science works.

, but to actually explain the correlations that occur -- the rest of the evidence.

How can I, if you won’t accept where they don’t? But here is a good article on why they seem to agree.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html...

Why do the season data match? Why do the long-term climate data match? Why do the 'event' (volcano, little ice age, etc) data match?

But they don’t. Not in every single case. If you were honest, you would admit that. Or don’t you know it?

I've dealt with this issue before, and I only need to note these things:
he was able to identify all five rings as being false rings without any problem,
if he was making a chronology he could deduct 5 years from this tree,

That is not what he was doing, obviously. But thanks for acknowledging that he was right. But how do you know which 5 to deduct? Obviously, this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year. You can deduct those five, but what about some tree that no experiment has been done on? One that is supposedly 10,000 years old? Which rings would you deduct?

he doesn't tell you about missing or partial rings, rings that don't grow for the year in question, or that are incomplete (say from a summer on a mountain top being too cold for growth) and which may be missed by the core, and which would make the trees too young if this effect was not determined,

No, but then all that serves to do is prove how uncertain it really is.

he doesn't tell you how he determined the missing rings, or provide any data from this "research", or a link to where the information could be found, so we also don't know what the %error would be involved if these were counted in error,

His point of course was to show that it happens. Do you deny it?

dendrochronology uses multiple cores from multiple trees from multiple sites to build up a chronology rather than rely on one tree, and reduce these uncertainties

So, you do admit that it happens? Reducing is not eliminating.

he uses intentional mis-direction to talk about a completely different species - in an entirely different subgenus, that grows in a completely different environment, and that has been bred for fast growth by the forest industry - with the stated implication that they are the same tree.

No, he said they were in the same genus. You are the one who is trying some kind of mis-direction here. How do you know what environment the Bristlecone pine was in 8000 years ago? Has it lived its entire life without a change in climate? What experiment can you do to prove that assertion?

This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud . Being in the same genus Pinus is not enough to be closely related - Pinus includes all pine trees all over the world, and this includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions:

But, they are pine trees. Right? I mean that is why they are in the same genus. Whether sub category or not.

Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.
(See Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud, for a more complete critique of the falsehoods, missing information and blatant misinformation of Don Batten in this one article.)

So far, the only misdirections I have seen are coming from you. Why is it ok to use two different species to cross check but no ok to use a different species of the same genus to prove the uncertainties of the method? Little double standard there, isn’t it?

This raises the question, that if what he was telling you was in any way a valid criticism of the science of dendrochronology (which has known about false rings much longer than Don Batten), then why can't he tell you the honest truth? The corollary is why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?

Just what is it that he lied about? Can you point out any lies in the article? Blantant assertions don’t prove your point.

The biggest problem is that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5% (in spite of being from not only a different Genus, but a different Division within the Plant Kingdom).

Like I said, why is it ok to use a different tree from a different climate, from even a different genus and say this proves the accuracy of tree ring dating, while discounting the problems associated with a tree from the same genus?

They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios.

How do you know they agree on climate 2000 years ago? How do you know they agree 400 years ago?

Hardly the big problem you seem to think. For one thing he is talking about one of three dendrochronologies covering the same time period, for another this information is 6 years out of date - he is using information from IntCal98 and new information from IntCal04 (PDF) shows they have now found samples to complete the dendrochronology without needing to use 14C to place specimens.

Ok, that may or may not be a fair criticism, I’ll have to check it out, but that in no way proves he was lying six years ago. If he didn’t have access to the IntCal04 information then, how can you hold it against him? Things change as new discoveries come about. Which only shows how little we actually do know.

Why doesn't Don Batten tell you the truth about the other two dendrochronologies?

Just what is it that he failed to mention? I missed it.

Why doesn't Don Batten update his information with the new information from IntCal04?

That’s a good question. Perhaps you or I can find a way to ask him.

Why do creationists need to lie if what they are saying is true?

Again, just what is it that he or creationists are lying about?

There are even more problems with this that we will get to should you care to confront the issue of correlations.

Well, I hope you are willing to be a little more forthcoming with evidence than what you have so far.

Again I note that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5%. They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios, a three way correlation.

As I said before, how do you know that they agreed on climate a 1000 years ago? BTW, you do understand that no one is saying that trees don’t produce a single tree ring in a single year, don’t you? All creationists are saying is that you can’t extrapolate this back 1000 years, because it has been proven, as Dr. Batton has pointed out and you agreed to, that trees can and have produced more than one ring in a single year.

Nope. Not at all. We know that it has been different at different times in the deep past, and we know that it varies on an 11 year sunspot cycle that affects the mechanism that produces 14C in the atmosphere.

What about the earth’s magnetic field? Does that effect it? Is the ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 the same all over the world for any specific time period? How would a global flood effect it?

We make no assumptions at all, but look for evidence for what levels were in the past.

And what evidence would that be? How can you know how much carbon 14 was in a sample when it died, if no one was around to measure it?

This is the whole purpose of IntCal98 and IntCal04.

To provide evidence of the carbon 14 carbon 12 ratio was in the past for a specific time period?

You can also think of the "carbon-14 age" as just being a mathematical transformation of the actual 14C/12C ratio in specimens, and then all you need to realize is that no two pieces can be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratios.

Interesting that you brought that up. http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/Carbon14.html

Can you measure the carbon 14 of a sample, say, is less than 150 years old?

It doesn't matter what the decay rate is now or whether it has been different in the past, this still holds true. This is just a simple truth based on the way 14C gets from the atmosphere into living organisms, especially trees.

And yet, it happens.

And what has happened since 1986? One thing that has happened is IntCal04 ... and the three tree ring chronologies that do not use 14C dates to place samples ... so this is just outdated information that no longer applies.

So a problem was recognized, and something was done to correct it? The problem is, it was thought to be accurate at one time.

This is another common way that creationists misrepresent science, by using outdated information that seems to be a problem.

It wasn’t outdated at the time the article was written, which only serves to prove that there was a problem.

This simple fact is that tree ring dating is more accurate (0.5%) than 14C dating (1%).

Based on what? Extra rings make up about 20% of the total, which makes it about 15% error.

See if you can think how that can possibly happen if it depends on 14C dating. And even it the error were 10% there would still be a problem for young earth creationists.

Actually creationists don’t have a problem with them when it is seen from a creationist’s point of view.

They are independent without calibration arriving at independent measures of ages beyond any YEC fantasy, meanwhile the calibration curve shows the correlation between them. Calibration is used to make the 14C ages more accurate because the annual counting systems are more accurate than the 14C method and are not subject to atmospheric variation.

Which would make them not independent. And all of that is based on the assumption that tree ring dating is accurate. Which you have admitted has problems with it.

Thus varve & ring counting make 14C dates better than they are without them.

Thanks for proving my point.

Caused by different levels of 14C in the atmosphere back then, so actually the tree and varve data show that those 14C dates are too young without calibration.

So if it disagrees with the tree ring and varve estimates, then it is calibrated to agree with it. Hmmm…very independent.

That data is from 1998 and the new data since then added to the data above gives us this distribution:
Compare the differences -- and the similarities.

All of that data looked pretty good, except we now know better:

Beck, J.W., et al. Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period, Science 292(5526):2453–2458, 29 June 2001; see Fig. 3, p. 2455.

I can’t link it, but you seem to be able to. Be interesting to see if you will.

I'd like to know what they mean by normalized and where the 550% number comes from. From what I have seen it is bogus, any bets? Look at those graphs above again -- where's that 550% data?

I don’t know, but try this:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22047.htm

Does it? Or does it just make the earth older when the data is corrected for new information?

And just how is it corrected?

The real question is how much error is involved rather than the hyperbole of the typical creationist website.

Well, the article I referenced above claims that the new data gives dates as much as 10000 years older than the Carbon 14 dates. Seems to a lot of error involved.

Notice the correlation with age and depth and with the rate of deposit of the sediments, especially where it changes. The only issue with Lake Suigetsu I see is when they get beyond the level of the diatom layers, at about

As I noted above those numbers are now in question.

I'd like to see a "flood model" produce different levels of 14C with each layer it makes that is consistently less 14C with depth on an exponential curve. You have no idea what you are up against here.

Actually the flood model consists of many different things. One of them being that things such as coal are tested for traces of carbon. And they are found. While you, wouldn’t consider testing it since you probably already believe that it is too old to have carbon in it. But at any rate here is one:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm

If there is actually even one "flood model" that explains varves at all.

Of course there is:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

How many times do the blatant lies of creationists need to be exposed?

So far you haven’t.

There will never be an equilibrium because it is produced by cosmic radiation that varies on an 11 year cycle (as well as longer cycles). Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. Any article that starts out stating this is lying to you.

And yet, radiocarbon dating has to say that there is. Otherwise, there never could be known how much carbon 14 was in a specimen when it died.

Again, if creationism is true why do creationists need to lie about it?

And once again, where is the lie. Modern Carbon 14 dating assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.

Why do they need to tell such easy to demonstrate lies?

If it is so easy, why are you having such a difficult time?

Why do they need to base their arguments on lies?

They don’t.

Yet no such assumptions are made.

All dating methods have assumptions. You can’t get around it.

Read the articles on the actual measurements of age in the ice cores and tell me where they make those assumptions.

Right off the bat, they assume the earth is billions of years old to begin with.

You can usually bet that when a creationist website tells you what "uniformitarian scientists" have done that the website is lying to you. Note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
quote:

Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology.
(Wikipedia, 2007)

No matter how you define it, it all adds up to the same thing. That what you see now has always happened in the past, and there is nothing else.

That is all "uniformitarian scientists" assume -- "that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe"

Since the beginning.

I Peter 3:4 predicted it.

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

This assumption has also been tested (scientists are like that) and so far there is no reason to think that the physical laws did not apply in the past as they do today.

True enough, except when miracles were performed, then they would have to have been altered. Or suspended for a time. But tell me what experiment can be done to test that all varves were put down annually through thousands of years of time?

What is actually done is to find ways to identify ice formed at different times of the year due to the extreme difference between summer (sun, cool) and winter (no sun, very cold) there are physical differences in the ice that is formed.

So you deny then, that uniformitarians observe what is happening today and extrapolate that back into thousands of years of time?

Another thing they can count in the less compressed layers are dust layers during the summer, some of volcanic origin that (surprise) correlates with known historical and prehistorical eruptions.

You mean like the ash layers in the Green River?

The layers are counted with no previous assumption about age at all.

No the assumptions come in after the counting.

AiG is another site that lies to you.

And I suppose I should take your word for that?

Don't you wonder why so many creationists sites lie about reality?

I’ve often wondered why people like you always claim they do without supplying any evidence of it. Or really I know why.

It seems you can't pick one and find reliable information ...

Really? Not any of it?

Why can't they just tell you the truth if creationism is true?

You’ve asked this over and over, and I keep asking you to show where they are lying.

If what they are saying has any relation to reality they should have no problem with presenting the facts of what science actually does instead of continuously misrepresenting it.

Once again, show where they have misrepresented any science.

The question for you, now that we have reached this point, and you have run through the standard creationist ad hoc criticisms of various dating methods is: why do they get the same results, the same patterns of climate, the same correlations to volcanic activity, the correlations to radioactive decay curves that are exponential, not linear, how come it all just plain works, both together and apart - the way science says it does?

It’s apparent you haven’t paid any attention to the “[i]ad hoc[/I\i] criticisms I have given you.

Another question for you is how you test for truth.

Now that is the most sensible question you have asked yet. I could ask you the same. Absolute truth comes from the Bible. Pilate asked Jesus the same question. What is truth? Jesus claimed to be truth. Everything I read and see is based on how it matches up with the Bible. The truth is truth whether you believe it or not. You, on the other hand, are also probably and evolutionist. If so what basis do you have of accusing someone of lying. If evolution is true, then any thought we have is just chemical reactions in the brain. What makes yours any more legit than mine? What makes your truth more truth than mine?

Do you compare concepts against evidence or some preconceived concept?

My preconceived concept is that the Bible is true. From the first page to the last. What preconceived concept do you start out with?

Do you check websites for lies or accept them if you "like" what they say?

I’ve already answered as to what I compare all things to. What about you?

Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened url link to fix page width


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2007 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 12-27-2007 8:13 PM Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 262 by edge, posted 12-27-2007 11:49 PM Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 9:33 PM Creationist has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 261 of 357 (444014)
12-27-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Creationist
12-27-2007 5:17 PM


your url needs fixing - another formating tip
type:

[url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]

and it becomes:

this message is linked to an url

Please edit the one you have in Message 260 so we can read it.

I'll see about answering this after it is edited. Nice Gish Gallop.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM Creationist has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 2366
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 262 of 357 (444050)
12-27-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Creationist
12-27-2007 5:17 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
When a method is determined have faults, then it should be examined. That’s the way science works.

And just what happens when this is applied to the YEC 'clocks'? I mean, if we are going to do science shouldn't we look at the moon dust argument and others? When you are done with that, please tell us what age each of these clocks tell you that the earth is.

And then (trying not to sound like a broken record) please explain the concordance of radiocarbon and tree-ring and varve and ice core data. No one else has ever done this. Maybe you can be the first!

No, but then all that serves to do is prove how uncertain it really is.

Compared to what? Once again, please give us your dates for the age of the earth.

So, you do admit that it happens? Reducing is not eliminating.

Ah, I get it. Either everthing is know to a certainty or it is unknown completely. Why do you not apply this philosophy to your own ideas on the age of the earth?

Actually creationists don’t have a problem with them when it is seen from a creationist’s point of view.

Of course they don't have a problem. They just reject the evidence, as you are doing.

My preconceived concept is that the Bible is true. From the first page to the last. What preconceived concept do you start out with?

You mean that your interpretation of the bible is true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM Creationist has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 263 of 357 (445545)
01-02-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Creationist
12-27-2007 5:17 PM


why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?
When a method is determined have faults, then it should be examined. That’s the way science works.

But just criticism is not a determination of faults, the determination is done by applying evidence and showing that something is not quite right.

Even then, all you have done is show that there is an anomalous problem, and until you have a new theory that explains all the previous evidence covered by the previous theory AND the anomalous evidence do you have a reason to change the theory -- that's the way science works.

Science works this way because the current theory is still better than any other at explaining the evidence until that new theory comes along.

But you also have situations where a seeming anomalous piece of evidence is itself contradicted by other evidence that confirms the original evidence. That is the situation you have here, where multiple lines of evidence add up to the same answer -- that the earth is old, very old.

How can I, if you won’t accept where they don’t? But here is a good article on why they seem to agree.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html...

Why don't you pick one thing on Ted's article and see if you can verify that it is true? From my point of view Plaisted is a liar, a computer scientist, and not a biologist, geologist or physicist. For instance he starts the following article with a lie (either intentional or unintentional, which displays a gross ignorance that makes everything he says just as questionable as if the lie is intentional):

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

quote:
The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes.

Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?

Why do creationists need to lie?

If the first sentence of the first article on the homepage on his website is a lie, then how can you trust a single thing he says?

But they don’t. Not in every single case. If you were honest, you would admit that. Or don’t you know it?

Gee, not all volcanoes have global effects. I'm shocked! There are climatological variations in the younger dryas from north pole to south pole. I'm devastated!

The overall climate picture is still the major correlation that shows through tree rings, the lake varves and the different ice core systems, a correlation that makes allowances for local variations and that still picks up on other more dominant events.

That is not what he was doing, obviously. But thanks for acknowledging that he was right. But how do you know which 5 to deduct? Obviously, this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year. You can deduct those five, ...

The real question is why doesn't he tell you the answers to those questions in the article? Why does he hide the truth? "Obviously" you are making a wishful assumption on an absolute absence of information in order to pretend to yourself that he is telling the truth - you have no reason at all for saying that "this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year." No reason at all - because that information is omitted from the article, the information on how he actually identified those and other false rings. He doesn't tell you the truth.

Why doesn't he tell you about the errors that can cause added age to the chronology -- errors that actually apply to the Bristlecone pines rather that his Pinus radiata?

Why doesn't he tell you about how different Pinus radiata is from the Bristlecone pine? Why doesn't he tell you about the ecological growing season differences? Why doesn't he tell you the truth?

No, but then all that serves to do is prove how uncertain it really is.
His point of course was to show that it happens. Do you deny it?
So, you do admit that it happens? Reducing is not eliminating.

No science eliminates all errors. An 0.5% error in 7,600 years is pretty good don't you think? Or do you deny it?

What Don Batten "knows" about dendrochronology he learned from dendrochronologists, including how to detect false rings.

You really haven't figured it out have you? Don likely went to a tree farm growing a kind of tree intentionally bred to be a fast grower (puts on a lot of layers fast), in an ecology where there is little climate differentiation between winter and summer and where storms or diseases are more sever effects - he went to a place and a kind of tree that he knew would give him false information, and he tells you that it is "like" the Bristlecone pine growth and climate. He lied to you. He played you for a gullible mark. He conned you. "Obviously" ... he intentionally set out to create such a lie, knowing how he could do it, what species of pine and what location would provide the him with the most bogus results.

This is what creationists do when they lie to you - they don't tell you the whole story, and they don't provide the data, because the whole story and the data would show the lies for what they are.

... but what about some tree that no experiment has been done on? One that is supposedly 10,000 years old? Which rings would you deduct?

You haven't looked at how it is done by the (professional) dendrochronologists have you? I gave you the links - the links that show how Don Batten would find the 5 rings just as any scientist would in counting rings. The trees that are 4,000 to 5,000 years old (not 10,000) are done in the standard way that accounts for all known kinds of error not just false rings.

Don Batten has no special knowledge of dendrochronology, no special insight, and he does not have any tools or techniques that are not used by dendrochronologists (he isn't one) in making chronologies, and his "results" are trivial existing knowledge to scientists that do this work daily. The only thing special he has done is to present the information as if there is something special about it to gullible ignorant people in a way tailored to play to their gullible ignorance - by omitting information and not telling the truth about what he did, and by suggestion of things that just are not true.

Can you explain the need to lie about dendrochronology -- if creationism is right?

Why do creationists need to lie?

No, he said they were in the same genus. You are the one who is trying some kind of mis-direction here.

I'm trying to tell you the truth: they are not the same kind of tree, they are not growing in the same kind of ecology. You have been conned.

They are in the same genus as all 115 other species of pine, but curiously NOT in the same subspecies, which would be a closer relationship. Or the same subsection, like the Foxtail pine, which would be even closer eh? Why not? This information would be available to a "scientist" like Don Batten - why did he choose Pinus radiata if not to create a lie?

Because one lives in swampy rain-forest conditions near the equator with virtually no seasons and the other lives on top of the Sierra Nevadas with a 42 day growing season and -32°C winter, but other than that they are hunky-dory identical eh???? Let me know when you wake up.

How do you know what environment the Bristlecone pine was in 8000 years ago? Has it lived its entire life without a change in climate? What experiment can you do to prove that assertion?
How do you know they agree on climate 2000 years ago? How do you know they agree 400 years ago?
As I said before, how do you know that they agreed on climate a 1000 years ago?

The science is called dendroclimatology -- the trees tell you when the climate changes, and change it does, just not enough to make a difference to the overall picture. There are Bristlecone pines that live further from the peaks than the ones used for the chronology and they have broader rings than the upper peak ones ever had, and that tells you that those peaks never got to the climate that exists lower on the slopes today.

. Why is it ok to use two different species to cross check but no ok to use a different species of the same genus to prove the uncertainties of the method? Little double standard there, isn’t it?

No, because the species used for the cross-checking live in the same ecology, and are from the same subgenus and subsection of the subgenus -- they are intentionally picked to be as close to the Bristlecone pines as possible.

Further, Don Batten did not "prove" any uncertainty in the method - he proved the certainty of the method by identifying every single false ring. The fact that you think there is an uncertainty is because of the false way the information is presented in the article, because he is not telling you the truth.

There are two things you don't seem to understand here: (1) Don Batten is not telling you the truth about how he found the rings, or about the relationship of the trees, or about anything relevant to the issue (and if he is not telling you the truth, what is he telling you?), and (2) the information that Don Batten does provide in no way shows any problem form dendrochronology -- all the false rings were identified by standard procedures used by dendrochronologists.

Like I said, why is it ok to use a different tree from a different climate, from even a different genus and say this proves the accuracy of tree ring dating, while discounting the problems associated with a tree from the same genus?

Simple: (a) because it does prove the accuracy of the tree ring dating, and (b) because it confirms that the information provided by Don Batten is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth (lie), and (c) because it shows that false rings do not significantly affect the accuracy of dendrochronologies even though he looked for the worst example he could find.

What about the earth’s magnetic field? Does that effect it? Is the ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 the same all over the world for any specific time period? How would a global flood effect it?

You're on your own with the global flood effect. I think it would interfere with tree growth, but then I'm a skeptic on the flood question. Certainly the dead wood around the Bristlecone pines has not been washed away ...

Neither of those would affect the 11 year cycle of the sunspots. There are minor variations in 14C/12C in the atmosphere at any one time, but not enough to affect results. This is confirmed with 14C/12C measurements on the tree rings for the oaks and the Bristlecone pines for the same ages.

Interesting that you brought that up. http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/Carbon14.html

This still does not change the fact that tree rings the same age will have the same 14C/12C ratio, because they absorb carbon from the same atmosphere while they grow. It's that simple.

From their "definition" of evolution:

quote:
Evolution: The definition depends on the situation. It can refer to the entire Big Bang to man idea or as narrowly as micro evolution. ( Observed variation in organisms ) The definition used depends on the need of the moment and can change without warning.

Is this a joke?

If they are going to lie about this, what else do they lie about? Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?

Don't you think there are better sites for information than ones where people lie? Don't you get tired of being lied to?

That's enough for tonight.

We still have the correlations between Bristlecone pine, Irish oak, German oak, solar sun spot cycle and 14C levels that all add up to the same result.

Again, all you have done is provide the usual mishmash of creationist information while completely avoiding the issue of correlations. Without an explanation of the correlations the information is useless.

I may get to the rest, I may not. Deal with the correlations first.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM Creationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM RAZD has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1308 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 264 of 357 (445554)
01-02-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


Benchmark Dating
RAZD: how does ANY of the dating techniques explained in the opening post determine their starting benchmark date?

What is the external check used to determine deep time accuracy?

I propose that you have none because none can exist. The only external benchmark date available to calendar history applies to calendar history exclusively (2140 BC; two star alignments and the fixed in stone descending passage in the Great Pyramid interlock once every 26,000 years).

What you have is rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks based on a guess by Charles Lyell in the 19th century as to when the Cretaceous period ended. That guess is still ballpark close to the accepted date of the end of the Cretaceous based on modern radio dating. This is nothing less than a miracle. And needless to say Lyell's guess in the 19th century is the beginning "benchmark" date or dating that modern evolutionists accepted and built upon. In addition, Charles Darwin ignored the experts in his day (Lord Kelvin) and augmented fantastically the age of the Earth in accordance to the needs of modification evolution. Again, this is the "benchmark" dating that modern radio dating is built upon. Again, this is nothing less than a miracle that a guess and a arbitrary augmentation to be confirmed by modern radio dating.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by iceage, posted 01-03-2008 12:01 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2008 7:27 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2291 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 265 of 357 (445586)
01-03-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object
01-02-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Benchmark Dating
cfo writes:

In addition, Charles Darwin ignored the experts in his day (Lord Kelvin) and augmented fantastically the age of the Earth in accordance to the needs of modification evolution.

And Charles Darwin was correct and Lord Kelvin was very wrong as history demonstrates - Lord Calvin did not know about the internal heat generated by radioactive decay. Another example of Charles Darwin insight and genius.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 266 of 357 (445860)
01-04-2008 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object
01-02-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Benchmark Dating
RAZD: how does ANY of the dating techniques explained in the opening post determine their starting benchmark date?

They start with today and count backwards, Ray. Annual tree rings, annual lake varves, annual ice layers.

What you have is rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks based on a guess by Charles Lyell in the 19th century ...

Nope.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Creationist
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 267 of 357 (449143)
01-16-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
01-02-2008 9:33 PM


Re: why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?
But just criticism is not a determination of faults, the determination is done by applying evidence and showing that something is not quite right.

The problems of radiometric dating are well documented. How much evidence of showing that something is wrong do you need?

Even then, all you have done is show that there is an anomalous problem, and until you have a new theory that explains all the previous evidence covered by the previous theory AND the anomalous evidence do you have a reason to change the theory -- that's the way science works.

I have given you a new theory, but you rejected it outright. By doing, I might add, the very same thing you accuse me of.

Science works this way because the current theory is still better than any other at explaining the evidence until that new theory comes along.

Again, that is incorrect. Either an intentional or unintentional lie? The theory of catastrophism, backed by experimental evidence that I have provided, still explains the geologic column more effectively. Of course, one has to have a different presupposition to see it, which explains why you reject it.

But you also have situations where a seeming anomalous piece of evidence is itself contradicted by other evidence that confirms the original evidence. That is the situation you have here, where multiple lines of evidence add up to the same answer -- that the earth is old, very old.

Is it anomalous, or is it a pattern? Does it just happen every once in a while? Or does it happen more often, yet not reported? Is the evidence only accepted when it agrees with a preconceived idea?

Why don't you pick one thing on Ted's article and see if you can verify that it is true?

Sorry. Refresh my memory. Who is Ted?

From my point of view Plaisted is a liar,

Well, you are welcome to your point of view, however, it does no good to call someone a liar without backing up your claim.

a computer scientist, and not a biologist, geologist or physicist.

Is that your point of view or is that what he is? Does that prove what he says is wrong? He did say that he got his information from John Woodmorappe, who is a geologist. It is a nice bait and switch tactic, but really not relevant.

For instance he starts the following article with a lie (either intentional or unintentional, which displays a gross ignorance that makes everything he says just as questionable as if the lie is intentional):
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
quote:
________________________________________
The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes.
________________________________________

You are kidding right? This is the best you have at trying to discredit Plaisted? Perhaps Plaisted could have worded it a little better, but in a nutshell, the general theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of life by naturalistic means.

http://creationwiki.org/General_theory_of_evolution

Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?
Why do creationists need to lie?

I haven’t seen a lie yet, but perhaps you can explain why you feel the need to try and divert attention away from the real issue?

If the first sentence of the first article on the homepage on his website is a lie, then how can you trust a single thing he says?

If it was, then you might have a point, but it isn’t. The real deception comes from evolutionists who try to define evolution as mere change over time.

The overall climate picture is still the major correlation that shows through tree rings, the lake varves and the different ice core systems, a correlation that makes allowances for local variations and that still picks up on other more dominant events.

A correlation that is based on the assumption of long ages to begin with. All ice core "dates" are derived by calibrating the various methods to the uniformitarian theoretical system. Just like the tree ring dating and lake varves. And just like varves and tree rings, ice sheets can form very fast.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/uoca-gic081304.php

The question for you and the other uniformatarians on here, is how do you determine which ones were formed quickly and which ones were not? I have yet to see that explanation.

In 2005, research concluded that glacial ice should be reduced from 8 million years to as low as 43, 000 years.

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FG21064.1&ct=1

Where is the correlation for long ages?

The real question is why doesn't he tell you the answers to those questions in the article?

Because there is no answer maybe? And why should he do your job for you? His point is that they are not reliable and gave an explanation as to why.

Why does he hide the truth? "Obviously" you are making a wishful assumption on an absolute absence of information in order to pretend to yourself that he is telling the truth - you have no reason at all for saying that "this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year." No reason at all - because that information is omitted from the article, the information on how he actually identified those and other false rings. He doesn't tell you the truth.

You are right, I was making that assumption. My, my, how assumptions can lead us astray. At any rate a little research could confirm what Batten was saying.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum20_2.html

quote:
ARE THE BRISTLE-CONE PINE TREES REALLY SO OLD?
WALTER E. LAMMERTS
Various treatments were given to 8-month-old bristle-cone pine seedlings; and it was found that supplementing the winter day length with a 250-watt heat lamp in order to give a total of 16 hours of illumination proved most effective. The lamp was placed about three feet above the seedlings, and the temperature in the growth chamber was kept at about 70'F. Those which received a short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control seedlings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring. The bearing of this on the estimates of the age of the bristle-cone pine forest is discussed. Under the San Francisco type of both spring and fall rainfall with a relatively dry perod in the summer the young forests on the White Mountains would have grown an extra ring per year quite often. Accordingly it is believed that the presumed 7100 year age postulated for these trees by Ferguson would be reduced to about 5600 years, on the assumption that extra rings would be formed by stress during about 50% of the years between the end of the Flood and about 1200 A.D.

Here is another article:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html

Why doesn't he tell you about the errors that can cause added age to the chronology -- errors that actually apply to the Bristlecone pines rather that his Pinus radiata?

If it can happen to one tree, can it not happen to another?

Why doesn't he tell you about how different Pinus radiata is from the Bristlecone pine?

Would that mean the Bristlecone pine is immune to it?

Why doesn't he tell you about the ecological growing season differences?

How do you know what the ecological growing season was for the area of the Bristlecone pine 10000 years ago? Uniformatarian assumptions being applied?

Why doesn't he tell you the truth?

As far as I can tell he has. Why don’t you?

No science eliminates all errors.

What do you mean? The science that discovered the polio vaccine eliminated all errors. The science that got man to the moon eliminated all errors. The thing is, what you are calling science is not science at all, but a hypothesis based on a philosophy. The philosophy that the universe is old and what you see now is the way it has always been.

An 0.5% error in 7,600 years is pretty good don't you think? Or do you deny it?

Percentage of error is relative. But an error is an error. That is just the errors that we know about.

What Don Batten "knows" about dendrochronology he learned from dendrochronologists, including how to detect false rings.

And your point?
.

You really haven't figured it out have you? Don likely went to a tree farm growing a kind of tree intentionally bred to be a fast grower (puts on a lot of layers fast), in an ecology where there is little climate differentiation between winter and summer and where storms or diseases are more sever effects - he went to a place and a kind of tree that he knew would give him false information, and he tells you that it is "like" the Bristlecone pine growth and climate.

Wow! Talk about wishful assumptions. The article told you all that?

He lied to you.

Where?

He played you for a gullible mark. He conned you.

You mean like you are trying to do?

"Obviously" ... he intentionally set out to create such a lie, knowing how he could do it, what species of pine and what location would provide the him with the most bogus results.

No. What he set out to do is show how tree ring dating is not reliable. It is based on unprovable assumptions, and does not prove that the earth is old. Or not billions of years old anyway.

This is what creationists do when they lie to you - they don't tell you the whole story, and they don't provide the data, because the whole story and the data would show the lies for what they are.

I think you have it the other way around. What they tell you is the other side of the story. The part that evolutionists try to hide. The part that shows that uniformitarianism and evolution is NOT fact, but a doctrine based on ones presuppositions about the world around them.

You haven't looked at how it is done by the (professional) dendrochronologists have you? I gave you the links - the links that show how Don Batten would find the 5 rings just as any scientist would in counting rings.

Tree rings are not unique. It is very hard to discern between one that was grown in a year and maybe three or four that was grown in one year. What they do is compare other trees in the same region to determine if one tree has extra rings or not. BTW, trees can also have missing rings, and they do the same thing to determine that. The problem with this is trees from the same species growing side by side do not produce the same ring patterns. Finding errors is subjective.

The trees that are 4,000 to 5,000 years old (not 10,000) are done in the standard way that accounts for all known kinds of error not just false rings.

Yes, by the method described above, which makes all of dendrochronolgy very subjective.

Don Batten has no special knowledge of dendrochronology, no special insight, and he does not have any tools or techniques that are not used by dendrochronologists (he isn't one) in making chronologies, and his "results" are trivial existing knowledge to scientists that do this work daily.

Batten is more than qualified to understand the methods of dendrochronology and therefore qualified to comment on them.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp

The only thing special he has done is to present the information as if there is something special about it to gullible ignorant people in a way tailored to play to their gullible ignorance - by omitting information and not telling the truth about what he did, and by suggestion of things that just are not true.

I guess ad hominem attacks is all you have left isn’t it.

Can you explain the need to lie about dendrochronology -- if creationism is right?
Why do creationists need to lie?

You have failed to show any lie on Batten’s part.

I'm trying to tell you the truth: they are not the same kind of tree, they are not growing in the same kind of ecology. You have been conned.

I understand that they are two different kind of trees growing in different regions with different climates. That does not nullify the information however.

They are in the same genus as all 115 other species of pine, but curiously NOT in the same subspecies, which would be a closer relationship.

Ok, so?

Or the same subsection, like the Foxtail pine, which would be even closer eh? Why not? This information would be available to a "scientist" like Don Batten - why did he choose Pinus radiata if not to create a lie?

Uh, maybe because that is the one that the experiment was done on? Batten didn’t do the experiment, he just merely used the data from what someone else did. However, as has been shown from the links above Bristlecone pine trees suffer from the same problem.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html

Because one lives in swampy rain-forest conditions near the equator with virtually no seasons and the other lives on top of the Sierra Nevadas with a 42 day growing season and -32°C winter, but other than that they are hunky-dory identical eh???? Let me know when you wake up.

From the article above:

quote:
Lammerts discovered that seedlings left to grow under ordinary greenhouse conditions, with no extra light or heat (Lammerts' home is in Freedom, California, where temperatures are cool enough in winter so that no growth took place during that period), exhibit only one growth ring after 2.5 years. The most significant of Lammerts' findings was the discovery that an extra growth ring could be induced by depriving the plants of water for two to three weeks in August and then resuming watering. Ordinarily, Lammerts had found, a three

Again, if the other tree offends you, this is on your beloved Bristlecone pine.

The science is called dendroclimatology -- the trees tell you when the climate changes, and change it does, just not enough to make a difference to the overall picture.

Really?

There are Bristlecone pines that live further from the peaks than the ones used for the chronology and they have broader rings than the upper peak ones ever had, and that tells you that those peaks never got to the climate that exists lower on the slopes today.

You know, I feel sorry for you. You rely so heavily on fallible science and their fallible methodology. There are many problems with dendroclimatology also. As this article points out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F06%2Fnclim06.xml

quote:
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming. Dr Brown said: “The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC.” He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: “They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years,” he said.

The whole idea that the climate can be “seen” in the past by tree rings is laughable. Trees don’t grow in the winter, trees don’t photosynthesize at night, trees don’t grow very well during a drought, although the temperatures could be high. Really, is this all you have?
The many problems of dendroclimatology can be found here at this website:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1303
No, because the species used for the cross-checking live in the same ecology, and are from the same subgenus and subsection of the subgenus -- they are intentionally picked to be as close to the Bristlecone pines as possible.

Cross-checking or cross-dating? Makes no difference. You cannot say for sure what the ecology of a region was like, 4000 years ago. There is just too many problems associated with it. One of those problems besides the ones mentioned above is the fact that insects that eat trees can also have an effect on tree ring dating as well as using tree rings to discern the climate of the past.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=126647

Abstract:

quote:
To understand climate change, dendrochronologists have used tree ring analyses to reconstruct past climates, as well as ecological processes such as herbivore population dynamics. Such reconstructions, however, have been hindered by a lack of experiments that separate the influences of confounding impacts on tree rings, such as herbivores and the interactions of multiple factors. Our long-term experiments with scale insects on resistant and susceptible pines demonstrate three major points that are important to the application of this commonly used tool. (i) Herbivory reduced tree ring growth by 25–35%. (ii) The impact on ring growth distorted climate reconstruction, resulting in the overestimation of past moisture levels by more than 2-fold. Our data suggest that, if distortion because of herbivory has been a problem in previous reconstructions, estimates of the magnitude of recent climate changes are likely to be conservative. (iii) Our studies support a detectible plant resistance × herbivore × climate interaction in the tree ring record. Because resistance and susceptibility to herbivory are known to be genetically based in many systems, the potential exists to incorporate plant genetics into the field of dendrochronology, where it may be used to screen distortions from the tree ring record.

Further, Don Batten did not "prove" any uncertainty in the method - he proved the certainty of the method by identifying every single false ring.

Who said he identified every single false ring. Besides Batten didn’t do anything, he just used the literature from the ones who did. And their literature did prove the uncertainty of the method, as well as many others that I have given you.

I do believe you protest way to much.

There are two things you don't seem to understand here: (1) Don Batten is not telling you the truth about how he found the rings,

Again, Batten in no way implies that he found anything.

or about the relationship of the trees, or about anything relevant to the issue (and if he is not telling you the truth, what is he telling you?), and (2) the information that Don Batten does provide in no way shows any problem form dendrochronology -- all the false rings were identified by standard procedures used by dendrochronologists.

I doubt if you would accept any information that goes against your beloved dendrochronological beliefs.

Simple: (a) because it does prove the accuracy of the tree ring dating,

No it does not. All it may prove is that trees tend to “auto correlate”. Consider the research of Yamaguchi in 1986 (Yamaguchi DK. Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.) What he did was take a 290-ring Douglas-fir log known by historical methods to date between 1482 AD and 1668 AD. He then, by computer analysis, showed that the log dated with a 99.9% degree of accuracy to date anywhere from 1504 AD, to 1647 AD, and 1763 AD. Not to mention the first two dates given. Obviously, there is something wrong with your dendrochronological dating methods.

Kuniholm once made this statement:

quote:
I, for one, was quite surprised to learn that dendrochronological data … is considered highly proprietary. … The value … of the … dendrochronological database is vitiated if there are no data attached and therefore available for use by others … We must keep in mind that unpublished information is next to worthless.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/kuniholm2001.pdf

and (b) because it confirms that the information provided by Don Batten is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth (lie), and

Again, it does no such thing.

(c) because it shows that false rings do not significantly affect the accuracy of dendrochronologies even though he looked for the worst example he could find.

And again, it most certainly does. You haven’t been able to prove otherwise.

You're on your own with the global flood effect. I think it would interfere with tree growth, but then I'm a skeptic on the flood question. Certainly the dead wood around the Bristlecone pines has not been washed away ...

That’s because the Bristlecone pines didn’t grow until after the flood. But, perhaps, I should have asked, how would pre-flood conditions effect tree rings?

Neither of those would affect the 11 year cycle of the sunspots.

It may not effect the happening of sunspots, but the magnetic field would definitely effect the effects of sunspots on the earth. A stronger magnetic field would tend to block those rays that produce 14C.

There are minor variations in 14C/12C in the atmosphere at any one time, but not enough to affect results. This is confirmed with 14C/12C measurements on the tree rings for the oaks and the Bristlecone pines for the same ages.

Ok, I can go along with that to a point. But it is well known that nuclear tests effected the amount of 14C in the atmosphere. Wherever the tests were conducted had to effect it in that area worse than on the other side of the world.

This still does not change the fact that tree rings the same age will have the same 14C/12C ratio, because they absorb carbon from the same atmosphere while they grow. It's that simple.

Nor was it meant to. That wasn’t what you claimed either. You said that no two pieces can be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratio. The article shows that different pieces of the same body of a mammoth has different ratios, therefore that is an untrue statement.

From their "definition" of evolution:
quote:
________________________________________
Evolution: The definition depends on the situation. It can refer to the entire Big Bang to man idea or as narrowly as micro evolution. ( Observed variation in organisms ) The definition used depends on the need of the moment and can change without warning.
________________________________________
Is this a joke?

Unfortunately no. Here are about six different definitions of evolution here:

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf

And a quote from this article, emphasis is mine.
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/biological_and_stellar_evolution

quote:
On the largest scale astronomers refer to the evolution of the entire universe. In the big bang theory, the entire universe has evolved, meaning changed, in the approximately 15 billion years since its creation.

If they are going to lie about this, what else do they lie about?

Again, where is the lie.

Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?

Again, these are not creationists articles, but evolutionary ones. If anyone is lying it is them. Perhaps you’ve been left out of the loop.

Don't you think there are better sites for information than ones where people lie?

Yes, that’s the reason I don’t use them.

Don't you get tired of being lied to?

Absolutely. That’s the reason I fight against evolution.

That's enough for tonight.

Thanks.

We still have the correlations between Bristlecone pine, Irish oak, German oak, solar sun spot cycle and 14C levels that all add up to the same result.

Uh. No we don’t. But, you’re perfectly welcome to believe it.

Again, all you have done is provide the usual mishmash of creationist information while completely avoiding the issue of correlations. Without an explanation of the correlations the information is useless.

And again, all you have done is regurgitate the same old tired stuff from evolutionists, long since been refuted.

I may get to the rest, I may not. Deal with the correlations first.

Rest on. They have been dealt with; ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 9:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 01-16-2008 9:29 PM Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 10:21 PM Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 10:46 PM Creationist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13033
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 268 of 357 (449153)
01-16-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM


Re: why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?
Creationist writes:

The problems of radiometric dating are well documented. How much evidence of showing that something is wrong do you need?

There's no scientific evidence casting doubt on radiometric dating.

Again, that is incorrect. Either an intentional or unintentional lie? The theory of catastrophism, backed by experimental evidence that I have provided, still explains the geologic column more effectively. Of course, one has to have a different presupposition to see it, which explains why you reject it.

Catastrophism was once the theory of choice, but when 18th and 19th century geologists gathered and analyzed the evidence they were forced to reject catastrophism.

Perhaps Plaisted could have worded it a little better, but in a nutshell, the general theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of life by naturalistic means.

You could both have worded it a little better. Evolution relates to the origin of species. Abiogenesis relates to the origin of life.

I haven’t seen a lie yet, but perhaps you can explain why you feel the need to try and divert attention away from the real issue?

I decry accusations of lying from any side in this debate. It places motivations instead of evidence at the forefront of discussion, and it distracts from the topic.

If it was, then you might have a point, but it isn’t. The real deception comes from evolutionists who try to define evolution as mere change over time.

There have been entire threads devoted to defining evolution, and no one has advocated so simpleminded a definition.

A correlation that is based on the assumption of long ages to begin with. All ice core "dates" are derived by calibrating the various methods to the uniformitarian theoretical system. Just like the tree ring dating and lake varves. And just like varves and tree rings, ice sheets can form very fast.

The correlations are not based upon "uniformitarian assumptions." Independent dating methods yield closely correlated answers, providing enormous confidence in their accuracy.

The question for you and the other uniformatarians on here, is how do you determine which ones were formed quickly and which ones were not? I have yet to see that explanation.

The question for you is how quickly formed layers could be identical to those formed slowly. Once reason, among many, that we can be so confident that layers form slowly is because rapidly formed layers have a much different character. Lake varve layers have sublayers that reflect the seasons. The layer count correlates with years determined by carbon dating. Tree rings form across the passage of seasons and contain a period of growth and non-growth. Ice layed down quickly would appear as a very thick layer, not as many layers, since it takes the passage of a warmer period to consolidate the previous winter snows into a layer that appears distinct from adjacent layers.

In 2005, research concluded that glacial ice should be reduced from 8 million years to as low as 43,000 years.

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FG21064.1&ct=1

The abstract says they were dating till (unconsolidated earth and rock heaped into piles by the movement of glaciers), not glacier ice. They argue against previous interpretations that the till is older than 8.1 million years. That article is not about ice layers, nor even about the age of the ice, though they say that some of their data should provide age constraints for the ice.

How do you know what the ecological growing season was for the area of the Bristlecone pine 10000 years ago? Uniformatarian assumptions being applied?

The term uniformitarianism isn't current within modern geology, and hasn't been for a long time, probably because the term is so easily misinterpreted as meaning constant and gradual change, but the principles live on. Geology assumes that the same array of forces and processes that can possibly act on our planet today have acted upon it throughout its history. The evidence, not assumptions, tell us whether any geological formation was formed rapidly or slowly.

RAZD writes:

No science eliminates all errors.

What do you mean? The science that discovered the polio vaccine eliminated all errors. The science that got man to the moon eliminated all errors.

That would be nice if it were true, but it's not. Polio vaccines increase the chances of children contracting polio. Three men died on the ground in a Mercury space capsule, Apollo 13 almost didn't make it back from the moon, and we've already lost two shuttles with their entire crews. So much for eliminating all errors.

Your post is too long, but then, so was RAZD's.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM Creationist has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 269 of 357 (449159)
01-16-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM


Re: why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?
Okay. Let's take one issue first:

The problems of radiometric dating are well documented. How much evidence of showing that something is wrong do you need?

One that is not full of falsehoods and misrepresentations would be a good place to start. It is easy to say that this is "well documented" but another thing altogether to see it stand up to the cold light of day.

This is not the thread for such discussion -- unless you relate it to correlations.

Radioactive carbon dating is one thread you can use for just carbon dating, and Problems with Radiometric Dating? is one you can use for other radiometric dating methods.

Note that threads are usually shut down after ~300 posts so there are not that many left here to deal with the correlations issue/s.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : links to other threads.

Edited by RAZD, : 300


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM Creationist has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15741
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 270 of 357 (449170)
01-16-2008 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM


Redirect on off topic trends. Correlations are the topic if you please..
Sorry. Refresh my memory. Who is Ted?
You are kidding right? This is the best you have at trying to discredit Plaisted? Perhaps Plaisted could have worded it a little better, but in a nutshell, the general theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of life by naturalistic means.
If it was, then you might have a point, but it isn’t.

This is the most pervasive lie in creationism.

You see, what you posted is also wrong. That is not what evolution IS. Ted Plaisted is lying about what evolution is and you don't know enough to say otherwise.

The real deception comes from evolutionists who try to define evolution as mere change over time.

Here's a thought: when talking about a science, you use the terms as they are defined and used in the science. Anything else is dishonest.

When you get your car repaired do you tell the mechanic what to call the parts? Do you think I should use terms from astronomy to talk about biology?

And a quote from this article, emphasis is mine.
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/biological_and_stellar_evolution
quote:
On the largest scale astronomers refer to the evolution of the entire universe. In the big bang theory, the entire universe has evolved, meaning changed, in the approximately 15 billion years since its creation.

Thanks for the chuckle. (hint: astronomy ≠ biology).

HOWEVER. This thread is NOT about evolution or the lies that creationists tell about evolution, it is about correlations between dating methods, correlations that end up with the same results from different methods.

Other threads where you can talk about evolution are the Definition of Evolution, MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and Evolution and the BIG LIE

Again, that is incorrect. Either an intentional or unintentional lie? The theory of catastrophism, backed by experimental evidence that I have provided, still explains the geologic column more effectively. Of course, one has to have a different presupposition to see it, which explains why you reject it.

Actually I reject it because it has already been falsified, a small technical detail. But this too is off topic. You can take this to the Uniformitarianism thread, if you care to discuss it further.

And to actually support your assertion for "different presuppositions" I suggest you trot over to the Conclusion vs Presupposition thread and provide the evidence of this claim. Jar will be happy to assist you.

Note that it is possible to find evidence to support any theory, even that the earth is flat. The Problem is defending that theory against contradictory evidence. One piece of contradictory evidence falsifies concepts you matter how much supporting evidence you think you have.

Is it anomalous, or is it a pattern? Does it just happen every once in a while? Or does it happen more often, yet not reported? Is the evidence only accepted when it agrees with a preconceived idea?

The pattern for the age of the universe is simple: there can be no evidence of objective reality that is older than the universe. There can be evidence that is younger, but this does not contradict an old universe the way old evidence contradicts and invalidates the concept of a young universe - no matter how much evidence is younger.

The pattern is the same for the age of the earth: older evidence contradicts young earth concepts, while younger evidence does not affect old earth concepts.

The pattern is also one of consistency and this relates to the issue of these correlations: the results are consistent with each other and build up to increasingly old age.

At any rate a little research could confirm what Batten was saying.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum20_2.html

So he created a totally artificial and unrepresentative condition in a lab that is nothing like the ecology on the mountain tops and then induced -- according to him and no-one else - a single extra tree ring to be formed. Yawn. Now what a scientist would do would be to test those results to see if they really applied. For instance he could compare those artificial conditions to the conditions found at the top of the mountain and recorded in the tree rings to see if anything even close ever happened during the time the rings grew.

Here is another quote from "Creation Research" ... Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html (7) (it's the second abstract):

quote:
There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.
Color yellow used for emPHAsis.

So your source has another article that says while the possibility of extra rings exists, as demonstrated by Batten and Lamerts, for totally different tree\ecology systems that this in fact did not occur, based on the evidence from objective reality for the tree\ecology in question. Concept tested, concept invalidated.

In other words, the dendrochronologists were properly able to identify all anomalous rings and develop not one, not two, but three independent tree ring chronologies that correlate not only with each other but with carbon-14 ages.

Now here's the problem that you are not facing: even IF what Batten and Lammerts says was true and actually happened (rather than just existing in fantasy land), and IF what your articles on radiometric dating are saying were true, then WHY do they correlate the way they do?

Why do we get this curve comparing German oak tree ring dating with carbon-14 age:


Click to enlarge

And this curve comparing Irish oak tree ring dating with carbon-14 age:


Click to enlarge

And this curve comparing Bristlecone Pine tree ring dating with Carbon-14 age:


Click to enlarge

Yes it's the same graph - because all three were used for it. If there were problems with the data the line should be a blur or show a scattering of points. It doesn't.

Why do all three of them show the 11 year cycle for sunspot variation at the same time?

Why do the three chronologies agree within 37 years after 8,000 years of data?

Why does ONE of these correlations exist if the data is not reliable?

A correlation that is based on the assumption of long ages to begin with. All ice core "dates" are derived by calibrating the various methods to the uniformitarian theoretical system.

How does counting tree rings depend on an assumption of old age?
How does counting layers of lake varves depend on an assumption of old age?
How does counting layer of ice depend on an assumption of old age?
How does measuring actual levels of carbon-14 in wood samples, leaf samples, bug samples depend on an assumption of old age?

Do you realize that this claim of a conspiracy of "calibration" of each of the dating method " to the uniformitarian theoretical system" is falsified by the dendrochronology data? If your premise that all data was "calibrated" to a preconceived "uniformitarian theoretical system" that the dendrochronological curve above would be a straight line at 45°, and rather obviously it is a jiggly graph that departs significantly from the "uniformitarian theoretical system" that it was supposed to be "calibrated" to.

Not only that, but each of the three independently derived tree ring chronologies done by three independent groups with trees from three independent geographic locations end up with the same jiggly graph. This in spite of each group using different labs to run the carbon-14 analysis. Further, there is no way for the dendrochronologists to know the carbon-14 content of a sample, and there is no way for the lab to know the tree ring age from the samples when each are taken from one ring.

Yet the results make the same jiggly graph for each of the three independent sets of data.

Just like the tree ring dating and lake varves. And just like varves and tree rings, ice sheets can form very fast.

And when they do form fast they do not show the same characteristics that annual layers show. Can does not mean does, and to go from supposing that something can happen to a rational position that it does happen means you have to test the concept in the real world against the evidence of objective reality.

In 2005, research concluded that glacial ice should be reduced from 8 million years to as low as 43, 000 years.

Here you misrepresent both articles, the first does not say that the ice is 8 million years old and the second is not talking about the same area, it doesn't have anything to do with the layers at the core site.

With that kind of misrepresentation of the facts, I'm done dealing with your "evidence" for now.

Deal with the correlations, deal honestly with the evidence. Feel free to discuss your other misunderstandings on the linked threads to relevant topics.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : shorter off topic longer on topic

Edited by RAZD, : expanded\rewrote response, subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle again


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM Creationist has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014