|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 ...? . . .
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
e: Why only 5k? What changed and what is the evidence for a change in varve deposition? C: I've asked for information on the topography of the lake, watershed, core samples of the watershed. It appears all you have to base your varves is on a few core samples. 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.
e: Whoa! Now THERE'S an authority. Do you really trust those folks after they've misled you so many times? C: Do you really believe you are not the one being misled? 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.
Answers in Genesis folks are just like you all looking at the natural evidences. 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.
C: No one supplied evidence on this thread concerning how Lake Suigestu formed. Check back on this thread of the link supporting kettle lakes formed as extreme blocks of ice from the glaciers settled causing the kettle to form. Not relevant.
e: The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of. C: Do you realize how far beneath the ice this plane was found. 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.
e: The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of. C: Was the cores done on the same glacieral ice flow. I thinks they wasnn't.
C: I heard it moved horizonal, but not vertical. If the cores were taken on the same ice flow where the planes were believed to be, then the varves are not bogus. If the cores would of been taken on another ice flow then they would not necessarily of been bogus, if it too measured the snow fall in the last 50 years. It would be interesting if a different ice flow was used, however if the ice core was not fractured that it moved vertical, if the entire flow moved, then I don't see the problem. After reading this paragraph, all problems seem insignificant.
e: Berthault's demonstrations are meaningless. He has shown nothing that isn't taught in a Geology 101 class. Can you state one of Berthault's Laws for us? C: I stated Berthault's Laws in a previous post. I agree it would likely agree with geology, its science is it not, that according to Berthault particles of different sizes will sort vertically, including settling in still water, and within moving water. Brethault used moving water and sand-sized particles. Please restate Brethault's Law. I cannot find it.
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? Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Brethault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on.
e: Are you just making this up as you go? You complain about others not doing 'real' science and the write something like this? (No Response) How do you feel Lake Suigetsu formed? Is your answer I have no idea? Perhaps you should look to the people at AIG rather than stereotype them? My answer is that it is not material.
Its like your pointing your finger at them and have three fingers pointing back at you? Or it could be that all fingers point at AIG. They depend upon your continued ingorance.
C: Checked out their site and they believe Bethaults laws still apply in regards to green river, but they agree that it was a multiple catastrophy. Its not a direct parallel to how a kettle lake's formed. Bethaults law takes into account currents producing multiple varves in short amounts of time,... 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.
C: ... and at green river you have no indication of erosion between varves according to the AIG people. According to mainstream geologists also. What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
craig writes: Razd, Ice varves do appear to be based off a ratio of O18 to O16, however it appears that O18 is suspect do to evaporation rate of ocean at time of snow formation and how far it travels before deposition. The Creationists appear to see the annual layers being thicker which would make sense because not all snowfalls would have the same O18 to O16 ratio. This makes sense on where the O18 to O16 uptake occured. 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.
Given core dating is suggesting a world catastrophy happened 5,200 years ago. Interestingly they didn't date the ice core, but used carbon dating to date the organics found. It might well be that it will be the C-14 dating methods that will be ice core dating ultimate demise. They did not say that they didn't date the ice cores, what they said was:
These finds are important since they will allow us to independently date the core at these levels using a different process, Thompson said. Both the insect and the plant material were probably carried from the Altiplano below to the summit site by thunderstorm winds. 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 | NCEIThe 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.
The most prominent feature in the Dunde ice record is the transition between the last glacial maximum (in the Pleistocene epoch) and the present Holocene epoch. Less negative d18O measurements suggest that temperatures were cooler during in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau during the Pleistocene, while high particle concentrations show that conditions were much dustier. Very low concentrations of NO3-, Cl-, and SO4++ during the glacial period may reflect higher precipitation rates during the last glacial maximum. 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.
It sure will be interesting when they finally carbon 14 dating all these Carbon sources of life 2 miles under the Greenland ice believed to be millions of years old. Did anyone hear if these results were yet published, or is there a conflict with dating conflicting with ice varve? 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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
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!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Has your carbon correlations of trees and lake varves been tested by these advance atomic spectrograph machines.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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 AM This message has been edited by Craig, 12-19-2004 01:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
TheLiteralist writes: Am I looking at this graph correctly 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. Yes.
Now about THIS graph: 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. 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, 14Ci, 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 14Ci. Because 14C is global, any sample where both actual age and 14C age are known can be used to determine the 14Ci ... 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.
Well, graph B in This (pdf) 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. 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.
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!) 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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
craig writes: Those ice varves pictures with annual volcanics, how many years did these varves go back? You may make an OEC out of me yet. ... It is quite interesting that most of your correlations support the OEC's beliefs. Isn't that something! 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.
With advanced C14 atomic spectrograph bones that once couldn't be dated still have enough C14 to C12 that they can now be dated. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c1http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c3 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c5
Accelerator techniques for carbon dating have extended its range back to about 100,000 years, compared to less than half that for direct counting techniques. One can count atoms of different masses with a mass spectrometer, but that is problematic for carbon dating because of the low concentration of carbon-14 and the existence of nitrogen-14 and CH2 which have essentially the same mass. Cyclotrons and tandem accelerators have both been used to fashion sensitive new mass spectrometer analyses. The tandem accelerator has been effective in removing the nitrogen-14 and CH2, and can be followed by a conventional mass spectrometer to separate the C-12 and C-13. A sensitivity of 10-15 in the 14C/12C ratio has been achieved. These techniques can be applied with a sample as small as a milligram. 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 withAfter 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 with And 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 sample That's getting to be a pretty small proportion.
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. 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.
eventually have those wood fossils under the greenland ice dated for Carbon, and they will come back dating thousands not millions of years old. 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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024