Age Correlations and an Old Earth

I suggest you take this to"is ID properly pursued?" (click) thread or start a new topic under the Intelligent Design Forum.

---

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

why is your "PS" on topic and your main message off? curious ....Problem with your statement is that the age of the earth as confirmed by the annual layers is old enough to show that your statement is wrong. Carbon-14 is correlated with known annual rings back to 45,000 years ago showing that the method is both accurate and reliable, with the accuracy improved by using the actual annual data to show the ancient C-14 levels available in the atmosphere. The graph is notice that the points form a distinct correlation with very little "scatter" that one would expect from an innaccurate system.This method has been used to date organic artifacts such as those made of wood that have obviously been made -- carved with patterns, tied with thongs, and holding chipped rocks -- and those artifacts date those human activities. From the original post: Dating of organic artifacts by C-14 verifies their age, C-14 verified by actual annual layers.Age based on actual objects by method shown to be accurate by actual annual layers giving real years.Enjoy.

---

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

I do find it interesing your talking thousands of years with tree rings, and varves that does suggest the fossils are not millions of years old, meaning toe is a dead theory, I've hear one could send in a seal fossil dead of a 20 years to get dated and it would likely come back 2,000 years old, or if you bury the fossil for 50 years and then send it in, it might date 5,000 years old, meaning you would get an error of over a factor of 10 in this case, problems like that probably explain how your varves and tree rings seems to be in agreement, but are not, because different fossils take up different amounts of C-14, and it being soluable, transmovement of C-14 by say the biblical flood waters, or even ground water movements, would also dilute the age given too, but say we agree with you, then Snellings mineralized Wood fossil that showed it was young, compared to the age of the surrounding basalt, proves the fossils are young, and the earth old, not that this was what Snelling was trying to establish, given he believes the earth is young, and all he was establishing is like you seem to be saying that the fossil record is not millions of years old, and toe is dead, lets replace it with a more viable theory, like creationisms, it really doesn't matter the age of the earth, what matters is the age of the fossils, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-10-2004]

Back in Message 23 I suggested that you might be misinterpreting something, because your conclusions didn't follow from the provided information. You didn't reply to that message, so since you're repeating the same mistake I'd like to make the point a little more forcefully this time: Your conclusions not only don't follow from the evidence, they are contradicted by it. You'll have to explain how you conclude fossils are not millions of years old from the lake varve evidence, which by simple logic cannot place an upper bound on fossil ages in general.Are you perhaps thinking of fossils found in the lake varves? Most certainly that would date those fossils to the same age as the varve, which would be only thousands of years, but would say nothing about the age of fossils found elsewhere. Just as fossils found in a lake varve can be assumed to be as old as the varve, fossils found in other types of geological layers can be assumed to be as old as the layer. In the case of many fossils, that would be millions of years old.If you prefer to believe that dating methods are unreliable and not to be trusted on the basis of unscientific claims by Humphreys and Snelling then I don't think we'll be able to change your mind. But because there is no supporting scientific evidence, Creationists like Snelling and Humphreys are not able to have any influence on science. That is why you have been reduced to speculating about possible correlations with other factors, such as ¹⁴C absorption by fossils and ground water movements. If you were right then it wouldn't be Abby providing a varve correlation graph, but instead you providing a ground water or ¹⁴C correlation graph. But you have no graphs, because Snelling and Humphreys and others like them have no evidence, because the correlations you wish for do not exist.Since you say it one more time, I thought I'd hit this point one more time: Abby was not saying that the fossil record is not millions of years old. You won't find fossils millions of years old in lakes only thousands of years old.--Percy

God is real,and nature is proof of this fact,amen.[This message has been edited by desdamona, 04-10-2004]

---

Desdamona*

Desdemona,Please reference my welcome to you hereAlso, please read and make sure you understand our Forum Guidelines.Your post is WAY off topic. This is a Dates and Dating forum, (not dinner and a movie dating, but age of the earth, carbon dating etc dating)Please keep your replies on topic. If you are here to just spam the boards with the same message no matter what the topic, you won't be here long.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Are you sure you're posting to the right forum?You have my concern level way up. I know you've only just joined, and I know the moderators have only just begun to engage with you, but one or two more off-topic posts like this and I'll have to suspend your posting privileges to give us time to help you understand standard practices at EvC Forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I'm very sorry about that. I really got too carried away. I didn't want to do it,it just came out that way. Please try to forgive this behavior.I'll stop it!

I apologize,I really don't know what happened to my good sense.

Those points on the curve provided above are actual organic objects dated by C-14 and placed according to their age as determined by counting the annual layers, showing organic material was alive and well at least 45,000 years ago. Objects that have not yet become fossils.What this material confirms is that the ages of the earth as determined by science for objects within the last 45,000 years is correct, regardless of any contrived scenarios of Humphery and Snelling.45,000 out of 4,550,000,000 confirmed by actual counting of biologically generated annual layers, or the top 0.001% of geological time scale confirmed does not mean that the rest is not confirmed or even in jeopardy as the methods of determining those greater ages has also been confirmed.In point of fact the varve and tree ring data does suggest that fossils can be millions of years old, it just is not capable of determining how many millions are involved.Likewise the ice core and calcite layer data show that their age confirms the geological dates derived by other methods, including radiometric methods and thus confirm that fossils can be older than 567,700 years old, or only the top 0.01% of the geological time scale. This still does not mean that the rest is unconfirmed or even in jeopardy as the methods of determining those greater ages has also been confirmed.Those same layers confirm the age dating ability of the radiometric methods used on them, methods that also date fossils in the same aged bands of sediment world wide, and that also date older fossils like the 400,000,000 year old coral heads (400 million year old fossil) which also correlates with the astronomical data on the deep time history of the earth-moon system.Your conclusions are contradicted by the rest of the data. It would appear that this information is not being processed.

---

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

Abbyleever, I kinda hear you, but still feel lots of factors could account to more than one varve per year, or more than one annual tree ring per year, appears according to Walt Brown site, there is a new way to determine C-14 age, the problem might be, why is there C-14 in all organic fossils ever found, it appears that that the fossil record is quite young, in light that C-14 half life is only 30,000 years, therefore, no old fossils should have any C-14 in their bones, apparently this is not the case, is this another nail in the coffin of toe? does not toe needs the fossils themselves not the rocks that buried them to show they are millions of years old, not thousands of years old, suppose toe will continue to date rocks to date bones, such is the problem with toe, they assume the bones are old, perhaps its time to date the bones themselves, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood On Walts google search engine type: How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimeneven materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those radiocarbon years correspond to a much younger true age.

You have some factual errors in your post.The halflife of Carbon-14 is 5730 years.All previously organic fossils *should* have carbon-14 in them, but it should dimish with time. If you have any direct examples of old (dated through indirect means) fossil measurements that has unreasonable large amounts of C-14, then there is indeed a problem.But even after 100k years, you should still have about 5 millionths left. If this constitutes 'nothing' is not for me to say, though.

heard of background radioactivity. You would never expect to find a carbon 14 level of zero. Some of the C12 and C13 in a sample will be changed into some C14 due to background radioactivity.Why is it that old fossils never have large amounts of C14? If C14 dating is as flawed as you say why are the levels in old samples always at the limits of detection or below?

whatever, You aren't paying attention to the title of this topic.Note the correlations. Until you explain them you haven't begun to touch the topic.I think you don't understand the whole point at all. If you actually want to discuss this then you might want to ask more about what the word correlations means in this context.It would, of course, be the first time you've ever actually grappled with the meat of a topic.

Name a few of those factors, whatever. In the context of Lake Suigetsu, please, where the varves are a clayey layer from the winter/spring rains and a diatom layer from the summer growth of diatoms. How many summers did they have each year when Walt brown was a boy, and Noah was floating around? And WHY DO THE 14C DATES MATCH UP WITH THE VARVE COUNT????