Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

well the ¹⁴C carbonate bubbling won't affect the tree-ring data at all,and the ¹⁴C nibbling bacteria won't affect the ice core data,so how can one have similar results when one is radically affected by supposed scenarios and the others are not?why does it seem that such "explanations" are more and more like epicycles on epicycles on epicycles ...?...

solstice shopping suggestions brought to you by Ann Telnaes
http://www.ucomics.com/anntelnaes/2004/12/15/

This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-18-2004 09:08 PM

---

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

The topography is not important. I seriously doubt that the topography is anything like other locations where varves are found such as Lake Gosiute. You are wasting your time on this.And where do you get this 'few core samples' idea from. Is AIG misleading you again? I really wouldn't have as much patience with them as you seem to have. Yes. The evidence is obvious. There are so many facts that they leave out in any explanations to you. Not only are you being misled, but you are being intentionallly misled. No. They prefer to look at little snips of evidence and make up ad hoc explanations, all the while ignoring huge tracts of science; when looking at the formation of sedimentary laminations, for instance. Not relevant. Yes. Do you realize that it was not located at the same place as the core samples on the ice cap? Do you realize that not all of the Greenland ice cap has the same precipitation each year? Could this be another place where AIG has misled you? Think about it. I thinks they wasnn't. After reading this paragraph, all problems seem insignificant. Brethault used moving water and sand-sized particles. Please restate Brethault's Law. I cannot find it. Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Brethault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on. My answer is that it is not material. Or it could be that all fingers point at AIG. They depend upon your continued ingorance. But there are no currents. Current ripples can be easily recognized in the field. This is silliness. If all you can refer to is a YEC website and ignore actual scientific explanations, you are hopelessly and willfully ignorant. According to mainstream geologists also. What is your point?

SO test current snow falls and prove it. This should be an easy way for creationists to check the data, and yet they fail to do so ... why is that?AND: Now tell me how the climates from the ice cores match the climates from the lake varves and the climates from the tree rings .... riiiight. They did not say that they didn't date the ice cores, what they said was: Counting the layers takes time to do properly (in a scientific manner with proper controls and double checks): they haven't done the counting yet. When they do they will then compare those ages with the ages from the organics to check the data with an independent system (those watch checks again).As mentioned in the article you also have ice cores from Quelccaya and Huascaran in Peru, located in the midst of the Andes Mountains:See Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI

The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. AND the "Little Ice Age" climate event mentioned previously as a "watch check" happens right on time.You also have dust bands on the Greenland ice from volcanoes, and these relatively rare events act as checks on that watch to see if it is still on time: they check out.You also have ice cores from Dunde Ice Cap is extremely remote, perched on the mountain range separating China's highest desert, the Qaidam Basin, from its more famous counterpart, the Gobi. High and dry, so accumulation there is slower than in Peru and Greenland. They can count layers going back 40,000 years, and Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment. Different systems, same results for age and climate. Neither of these low latitude ice fields uses the ¹⁸O to ¹⁶O ratio to measure the annual layers, although the information is available on this later ice as a secondary check. These systems check the ie core watch for speed and it is still on time, so your storm changing oxygen level scenario doesn't pan out here either. What this proves is that you do not understand ¹⁴C dating, as anyone who does knows that the limit to this method is 50,000 years: after that the proportion of ¹⁴C is too small to measure with enough accuracy to get meaningful results. They said they would analyze the samples, but not how or even if they would be able to date them. This is why the correlation of ¹⁴C dating to the Lake Suigetsu varves stops at that point even though the varves continue to much greater depth and there are still samples embedded in them.And any conflict in age would be news, not buried. This is a common creatortionista insult or lie, and you show your colors here.Enjoy.

---

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

RAZD,Am I looking at this graph correctly now? How I'm seeing it now...Each data point represents a fossil from a lake varve. The bottom line (independant variable) is the varve "age", which is generally OLDER than the carbon age (vertical axis, dependant variable) and apparently in a fairly consistent way.THAT'S how they are able to have different starting points on the two axis ~ it's two different "ages" for the same sample!(I got it, right?)

---

Now about THIS graph: What I DO get...(I think)
The horizontal axis (independent variable) represents the "absolute ages" as determined by either varve count, tree-ring count, or ice-layer count for various samples.The vertical axis (dependent variable) represents the (calibrated?) "carbon age" of the same various samples.What I DON'T get...If the varves are assumed annual, then the varve ages should either be THIS diagonal line or an off-set but parallel line, right? Are there flucations in the varve ages? Since the 14C ages are "calibrated" by simply setting them equal to the varve "ages", then I fail to see how any variables affecting 14C "ages" comes into play in this second graph.IS this graph using calibrated 14C ages? I'm assuming it is.It just seems that once you've set something equal to something else, the 1:1 ratio automatically exists...if these are "calibrated" carbon ages, I don't understand the deviation from a 45-degree line.I'm still not getting this graph.Or does the line represent "calibration" and the points and their deviations are just the other graph on a different scale?

---

Please note, that I am setting aside, temporarily, all the young-earth/old-earth issues and granting the researchers all their assumptions; I am NOT trying to disprove anything in this post; I am simply trying to understand their graph. (I think I finally got that first one...whew!)

---

Well, graph B in This Article, still has me quite confused. It SEEMS to indicate in the caption that the carbon dates are calibrated for graph B, and yet the absolute ages and the carbon ages are NOT equal.I feel like I'm missing something REALLY simple and obvious.

I'm pretty sure, TL, that the "radiocarbon age" in the second graph is based on a calculation involving only the half-life of carbon 14 and an assumed-constant carbon-14 level in the atmosphere - the level we really had in 1950, perhaps. This "assumed-constant" thing is known to be untrue: that's the whole reason for the paper and the graph. They set out to calculate true levels in the past, and those levels are closely related to the distance a data point is below the "ideal" line on the second graph.

Razd, That was quite interesting. Those ice varves pictures with annual volcanics, how many years did these varves go back? You may make an OEC out of me yet. I hear some of them believe the creation began when the sun started shining 13,000 years ago. They like you believe the tree's have been growing for at least 10,000 to 11,000 years. It is quite interesting that most of your correlations support the OEC's beliefs. Isn't that something! hmmm....I've heard that your C14 to C12 ratio can be dated by special atomic spectograph machines that are far more accurate than normal C14 to C12 measurements.With advanced C14 atomic spectrograph bones that once couldn't be dated still have enough C14 to C12 that they can now be dated. It has been said on a creationists site that human remains proven to be millions of years old have been re-dated by atomic spectrograph like machine re-dating thousands not millions of years old. Has your carbon correlations of trees and lake varves been tested by these advance atomic spectrograph machines.I realize you believe those wood fossils found under Greenland will not have any C14 within the wood fossil. I however feel they will eventually be proven to be thousands not millions of years old.Hopefully those Geologists will not washed the wood fossil with a carbon based petroleum to preserve the fossil, making dating the wood fossil by C14 impossible. Hopefully Creationists at AIG will get wind of this, and make sure the fossils are correctly handled and dated, that are been found beneath the Greenland ice varves. I'm a bit concerned because I've heard evolutionist like to use carbon solvent to wash the fossils. With atomic spectrograph machines is it now possible to date some fossils directly that one previously couldn't date by old C14 methods.I actually enjoyed your pictures, and feel some of your ice varves are quite interesting You all will have your work cut out for you because while your correlations appear to support more the OEC's. However the YEC's with their hands tied behind their back will eventually have those wood fossils under the greenland ice dated for Carbon, and they will come back dating thousands not millions of years old.

C: and at green river you have no indication of erosion between varves according to the AIG people.E: According to mainstream geologists also. What is your point?The point if you believe these varves were all laid down one each year, or over millions of years, shouldn't there be evidence of erosion.e: Is this Berthault again? Do you know what grain size of sediments he used in his demonstrations? Do you realizew that this has nothing to do with silt and clay sedimentation such as that at Lake Suigetsu?C: Why would it not include silt and clay sedimentation?E: Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Berthault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on.I think the answer lies in the biblical flood, it provided the clays and the sediments. The silt and clays would of been rushing off the face of the earth. The waters should of been quite turbid, because the sorting of the larger particles of the flood would lie primarily beneath the clays and silt because of Berthaults laws.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-19-2004 12:52 AM

All of the Lake Suigetsu dating was done by accelerator mass spectrometry, which is likely what you're talking about. But 14C won't get to as much as 100,000 years back even with this method - the quantity of 14C just gets too small.Greenland ice cores have been counted back 130,000 years, by the way. And the Vesuvius ash layer from the eruption that buried Pompeii was found in one of those cores, and the count was seven years off - from 79 AD. 7 years out of about 1900 - figure that percentage error for yourself.

Only if the sediments in question were above water level at some point. If they were continuously lake/sea bottom, there would be nothing to erode them.

Coragyps, Its too bad then that they correlated the C14 to the annual varves as years in respect to Lake Suigestu. It does appear to me its a sortive mess. If they used advanced accelerator mass spectrometry, why didn't they date the varve directly, not that it would matter "if" the varve are contaminated by C14 mineral carbonates.Just thought it interesting that the correlation comparison charted line for the first 5000 years is a tight correlation and the older correlation's are not as tight of a correlation. It has to be that there was human error in calibrating the C14 method to as if they were all annual varves.I do find the ice varves interesting, though from a Creationists perspective of the amounts of snow that fell in the world flood. It might well answer the problems to be found in respect to ice varves accuracy greater 5,000 years give or take 500 years, depending if your an OEC's or an YEC's. This means most of your varves could of been formed in the 40 day flood, if so those wood fossils will come back dating 10,000 years(the freezing temps will preserve the carbon).It sure would be interesting about those tree fossils believed by you to be under 130,000 years of snow varve is proven bogus by advanced C14 dating. There was a phone number on the link, I just might give them a jingle This message has been edited by Craig, 12-19-2004 01:30 AMThis message has been edited by Craig, 12-19-2004 01:52 AM

Yes. No it is not using calibrated ages. In fact this is the same graph as before, the only difference is that it has the diagonal line.The problem with ¹⁴C is that it is dependent on two variables: (1) actual age, and (2) initial ¹⁴C in the atmosphere when the organic object was alive (and taking up carbon, the normal 12 plus 13 and 14 isotopes in the proportions present at that time). We have to make assumptions about (2) in the age dating when not calibrated, and the most common assumption is that it was present at current (actually pre-atomic 1950) levels. This variation in initial ¹⁴C is what causes the samples to vary from the line: you can think of the distance that each samples ¹⁴C date is below the line as the difference in initial ¹⁴C from the "current" datum expressed in years.To summarize:

varve age = f(actual age, counting errors)
¹⁴C age = f(actual age, ¹⁴C_i, measurement errors)

where varve counting errors are +/-1.5% and ¹⁴C measurement errors are +/-5%, so the major player is actual age and a lesser player is the ¹⁴C_i.Because ¹⁴C is global, any sample where both actual age and ¹⁴C age are known can be used to determine the ¹⁴C_i ... and this is the calibration of the method. In practice you cannot use the calibration before you do the measurement, so it is applied as a correction afterwards: take your new ¹⁴C date and enter the graph on the y-axis with your test measured age, go to the calibration curve (the wiggle that goes through all the points) and then drop down to real age. The only places this is a problem is where the wiggle drops below a horizontal from the previous point, and this happens at the Younger Dryas period and at an older event (~29k to 30k BP) and to a lesser extent at a couple other locations: this just means that your uncertainty for samples testing to those levels is greater (larger range of error possible).As I have said before, this is a calibration issue and not a correlation issue. The issues for correlation are:(1) The theory of the ¹⁴C dating method says that there is a correlation of the ratio of radioactive ¹⁴C to normal ¹²C with age. We see that in these graphs, and(2) The theory of the ¹⁴C dating method says that there will be variation in the results due to variations in the initial ¹⁴C levels at the time the sample was living. We see that in these graphs as well. That is the same graph as above, the ¹⁴C dates are not calibrated. It is in color and uses different symbols for the samples from other sites, but the information is the same. That is an admirable approach, and appreciated. Yes, I think you are getting the concept.

---

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

Okay, I *think* I pretty much got the graphs. I was assuming the calibrated dates were being graphed and that was throwing me off. I don't think I got it all the way yet, but I think I'll leave off the issue for awhile now.

um, those were annual dust layers on the low latitude ice systems, not volcanic (although there would be volcanic dust when there were volcanic eruptions). Yes the old age of the earth by scientific method is consistent with OEC claims, but it is because the OEC model accepts the scientific age of the earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c3http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c5 I suspect that small sample size does not hold for the very old samples ... lets look at the percentages remaining for ¹⁴C with age ... every 5730 years there is half as much so:After 5730 years you have half as much as you started with
After 11460 years you have 1/4th as much as you started with
After 17190 years you have 1/8th as much as you started with
After 22920 years you have 1/16th as much as you started withAnd at 50,000 years you have (1/2)^(t/5730)
= (1/2)^{(50,000/5,730)}
= 0.2362% of the original amount of ¹⁴C
= 1 atom for every 423.4 in the original sample ...While at 100,000 years you have (1/2)^(t/5730)
= (1/2)^{(100,000/5,730)}
= 0.0006% of the original amount of ¹⁴C
= 1 atom for every 179,299 in the original sampleThat's getting to be a pretty small proportion. I think you can be certain that the geologists at Lake Suigetsu will not be contaminating the samples there. It will be interesting to see if they go back to get more samples to test with this method and extend the correlation\calibration to 100,000 years.Based on the data from Devil's Hole, (567,700 annual layers, different system, different method, same correlations to age and climate) I have confidence that they will continue to correlate in a similar manner. Anything older than 100,000 years will come back with a date of >100,000 years as that is the limit of the testing. If you have NO ¹⁴C in the sample, that is the result and that is a likely scenario in any sample near the age limit and beyond. You cannot use methods beyond their testing limits and get real results (you can however get AIG results, but that is another matter).Consider the above calculation for 200,000 years ...
... you have (1/2)^(t/5730)
= (1/2)^{(200,000/5,730)}
= 0.000000003% of the original amount of ¹⁴C
= 1 atom for every 32,148,089,706 in the original sample ...It does not bother me that these ages allow the OEC model to exist, for the intent was not to discredit christianity, but to show that the YEC model is as outdated and scientifically irrelevant as the flat earth model, your faith in YEC notwithstanding.

---

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

okay. you will be welcome back any time. have a happy solstice celebration of your chosing.

---

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