Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Loudmouth, I have not really studied varve information, though probably has some merit for the last 4,350 years, before that you would have the varves from the melting glaciers, the flood sediments themselves, and preflood varves, just find it interesting that trees show they are all quite young, by the C-14, and how ancient human bones all tested to be 5,000 years or younger, etc...P.S. I kinda hear you though on dual porosity, though its really quite scientific, capillary waters, solutes seeking to equalize to lesser concentrations, through in the weak electric current of the earth, when you add large amounts of time like the 4,350 years since the biblical world flood, a whole lot of transmovements of ionic solvents, that could affect the dating methods proportionally, where they appears to agree one to the other, though don't believe you can date a rock that buried fossils to be the same age as the fossil (that takes a leap of faith), Rather than argue all this again, think I'm just going to agree to disagree, and take a break, etc...

Ahhhh the old soft shoe shuffle shovel approach ...All of that {?word association?} {?repetition of jargonese?} does not explain the correlations. see http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old EarthNor do you explain how you get alternating organic diatom layers and inorganic {silt \ clay} layers when you have just stirred them together. How do you get thousands of alternating layers from particles that settle out at different rates from suspension in water? How do you do that in a manner that matches the C-14 testing of organics in those layers and the climate data from other sources -- how do you differentially sort matter by C-14 content in one settling system? The weight difference from decay is immeasurably miniscule compared to the differences between diatoms and clay.Why do these very different mechanisms show the same climate trends on both a micro (annual) basis and a macro (geological ages) basis? Why do they correlate so well with each other and known historical events -- volcanic eruptions recorded in early history well before the zero calendar date (or lack thereof) -- showing the correlations of the annual layers are consistent back to those known events? How then do you explain the correlation between the antarctic ice cores and the greenland ice cores?The wikipedia article on the younger dryas dating did not state the dates were set in stone, but did show that the margins of error all overlapped for the FIVE different methods cited. How do you explain that correlation?Your problem with the cave is different -- the calcite layers do not form under water. They are formed by a slow flow of mineral saturated water over a surface, allowing the minerals to come out of solution and deposit on top of the previous layer. This leaves you two possiblities: (1) the layers existed long before the "flood" and the correlation with the climate data for the ice cores show they too must be pre"flood" formations (and your problem with extreme age compared to YEC model remains) or (2) the layers were created after the "flood" by a mechanism that completely mimics both the annual layers (complete with two different radiometric dating correlations) AND climate data formed by the other systems. Only by steadfastly ignoring the correlations and other evidence of consistency through the mechanism of an active bubble filter.

---

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

quote:

---

I kinda hear you though on dual porosity, though its really quite scientific, capillary waters, solutes seeking to equalize to lesser concentrations, through in the weak electric current of the earth, when you add large amounts of time like the 4,350 years since the biblical world flood, a whole lot of transmovements of ionic solvents, that could affect the dating methods proportionally, where they appears to agree one to the other, though don't believe you can date a rock that buried fossils to be the same age as the fossil (that takes a leap of faith), Rather than argue all this again, think I'm just going to agree to disagree, and take a break, etc...

---

Could you please give us the study that shows elements moving within strata. I want methodologies and graphs showing the data. If no such study has been done, how do you know it happens?

Hi Whatever,I believe I covered the Greenland ice cores in this thread. It blows the YEC timeline out of the ocean.Mark

I know you all feel Snellings wood fossil being mineralized was affected by water carrying C-14 to the fossil, though personally, its would of dated younger if the C-14 wasn't mineralized (leached out) of the fossil a bit, so many ways of looking at things, however, if you all are going to believe C-14 in varves is cast in stone, then your agreeing with Snelling that the fossils are quite young, your similarities are only because of similarities happening when the varves were laid down, meaning they could be quite young, not sure how snow varves work, but leaning that a dust particle is in every snow/rain drop, many snow storms with different temps, could give the illusions of many varves per year, etc... I didn't feel your cave was underwater, not that some caves are not filled with waters, felt by humidity of leaching the stalagtites could grow quite quickly, especially if the flood contributed to prolonged water table leaching into the cave, after the surface flood waters subsided, etc...P.S. There is a lot on how inaccurate C-14 dating actually is, doesn't surprise me that it errors making things appear older, consistently, which is of course why they date the pleistocene extinction (biblical flood, glaciation) happening around 10,000 to 11,000 years past, when its obviously happened only 4,350 years if you take the bible literally, etc...It does appear though were in agreement that C-14 does error making things appear older than they actually are, etc...Loudmouth, My computer crashed with all my favorites, so going to pass on graphs for dual porostiy, though would think the DNR would have all kinds of graphs for diluting (sprinkling) toxic wastes on farmers fields, though think they are all getting concerned about contaminating the ground water, perhaps the solution to pollution is simply to tank these wastes to sprinkle in the ocean, and other garbage to create fisheries along the continental shores, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-12-2004]

You actually think you are discussing the issue at hand????!!!Un Bee lievable!whatever, i think it is time for you to give up. You don't get it, you aren't going to get it, you are incapable of getting it.Astonishing that someone who can at least turn a computer on can be so totally out of it!!!

Still does not explain the correlations ... (yawnnn)That you even consider Snelling's mineralized wood sample C-14 data as valid means you are not understanding the proper methodology of the testing. Any minerals in the wood is evidence of contamination of the sample. Carbon-14 is NOT done on samples in the process of fossilization (eg -- where minerals have replaced the original material) but on organic samples. Obviously if minerals are leaching into the wood they are replacing sample matter with foreign substances that will muck up the result.Note that real scientists normally use at least two different methods to arrive at dates for an object to ensure that there is not something throwing a monkey wrench in the works, and when they find discrepancies they look for the cause. Again -- read Dr. WeinsA real scientist would look at the sample and say "It has foreign matter in it, the C-14 data is invalid" while a creatortioinista would look at the sample and say "It has foreign matter in it, so it will give a bogus date that I can use to throw invalid suspicion on the testing method for gullible people."The age of the samples in the lake in no way means that Snelling is any more valid than before as they are in the valid range for organic objects to be properly dated by C-14.and you still have those correlation problems ...

---

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

RAZD, It's not just Snelling mineralized wood sample, but coal, oil, that show similarities to your age discrepancies, for 40,000 years, leaning most of your correlations are based on organics found in water saturated environments, Just factoring in to your correlations that it would make it suseptible to date older like the coals, oil, that you all believe errors because of leaching of C-14 from the waters into the coal, oil, etc...If you believe this, then you should believe that its affecting your correlations proportionally too, etc...P.S. It might well be that coal, oil, found in strata believed millions of years old, is testifying they are quite young, or at least as young as some of the varves your believing to be 40,000 years old, making the fossil record quite young, etc...

duplicate post deleted by edit. system hung up on the original send and had not shown when I sent the second.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-12-2004]

---

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

There is no "factoring in" of correlations in this matter ... for you have yet to explain one (1) correlation from one dating system to another.There are reasons that C-14 is invalid for coal and oil ... and again I touch on the difference between a scientist and a creatortionista: when there is an anomaly in the data the scientist will look for the cause, the creatortionista will say "the system's flawed and can't be relied on" hoping fervently that people won't turn to the scientist and ask {why?}.I did a google on {carbon 14 coal} and found this article by Kathleen Hunt
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits: (carbon 14 notation changed to "C-14" in the material quoted for consistency)There is more, and anyone who is really interested in understanding this matter should read the whole articleLets see ...
Fossil Wood C-14: invalid dating due to mineral contamination
Coal C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Oil C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Correlations: not answeredBalls in your court ... still.

---

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

quote:

---

There is no "factoring in" of correlations in this matter ... for you have yet to explain one (1) correlation from one dating system to another.

​

There are reasons that C-14 is invalid for coal and oil ... and again I touch on the difference between a scientist and a creatortionista: when there is an anomaly in the data the scientist will look for the cause, the creatortionista will say "the system's flawed and can't be relied on" hoping fervently that people won't turn to the scientist and ask {why?}.

​

I did a google on {carbon 14 coal} and found this article by Kathleen Hunt
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
...

---

There is another interesting point here. Even though every sample referred to by YECs has some C14 in it, all of the dates derived from those samples range from 40ky to 60ky. So really, they are all at the limit of the range of usefulness of carbon dating. Now, what that means is the the sample is 'at least' 40 to 60ky; not that the sample is actually of those ages. Trying to explain this to a YEC, however, is usually impossible.I think you have explained very adequately why there is C14 in a sample so old as Paleozoic coal. What happens is that background radiation produces a noise of 'constant' low C14 values. This noise is not meaningful data, whatever the YECs try to say and no matter how sensitive the new instruments are.

good point -- a sufficiently large sampling of pieces should turn up an anomaly or two ...and it is somehow okay for those ages from the testing even though they are 8 to 10 times the YEC age of the earth ... how is that?

---

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

I wasn't aware that its been proven that thorium is capable of donating the neutrons necessary to generate C-14, an unstable isotope, thought its only been proven to be generated in the upper atmosphere by some scientists called Libby, think I've made a point though, that water leaching might be affecting your correlation, why they seem to error proportionally, etc...P.S. Creationists don't believe the coal is old, but it suggests its not millions of years, but then the coal being organic wouldn't date the same age as the rocks that buried them, thought it interesting that you are suggesting thorium can donate radioactivity, suppose throw a little water transmovements, and you affect all your dating methods proportionally, but if the coal is young, because C-14 is an unstable isotope, thought thorium is a stable isotope, suspect C-14 its the one donating neutrons, accelerating your C-14 decay, in the presence of water, the reason its not dating 4,350 years, depending on how you look at it all, it might well suggest the coal is quite young, thorium holds onto its neutron's, its the C-14 thats the more unstable isotope, etc...

Whatever, Stop right there!The post I linked to in this thread had nothing to do with C14, it had everything to do with blowing the 6,000 year YEC timeframe away, though.Mark

Everyone is telling you you're not addressing the correlation. Your scenario requires that a storm on a lake in Japan lay down a varve layer at the same time as a tree ring grows halfway around the world. How do you explain this, especially given that the correlation isn't between one varve and one tree ring, but between thousands of varves in the same order with the same ¹⁴C characteristics as thousands of tree rings, all in different parts of the world with different weather?The varve, glacier layers, and tree ring data are studied not because of their relevance to the Creation/evolution debate, but for scientific and historical reasons, such as improving dating accuracy (which helps many fields, including dating Biblical archeological sites where your fellow evangelicals seem to have little problem accepting ¹⁴C dating) and understanding climatic history. Scientists did not go looking for the correlations hoping to prove an ancient earth. On the contrary, simple logic required the correlations be there, it would have been surprising and very puzzling had they not been there, because the experience of everyone everywhere is that the annual climatic cycle leaves behind evidence, tree rings being the one known for long before the modern scientific era. It just so happens that the data from this scientific work is relevant to discussions like this because it contradicts young-earth scenarios.The data we've been describing for you is relevant because it is correlated, something that could not happen by chance. Any valid alternatives must explain the correlations, not ignore them.By the way, I'm having more and more difficulty making sense of your messages because of the run-on sentences.--Percy