|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not possible. In other words you have a closed mind. You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim
Not possible. You raised the issue, but when confronted with the evidence and asked to deal with it you say
Not possible. When faced with evidence that counters your pet fantasy you run from it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : toyp 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hughes Inactive Member |
In other words you have a closed mind. You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim I was asked about Millions of years not 10,000 years. I said more than once that tree rings are probably the strongest/best test of time. Then I was asked about calibration. If you what you mean by calibration, "large amounts of unsubstantiated extrapolation" then yeah I suppose you have what you wanted. Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true. First, if I learn. I win. If I'm proven wrong. I win. If I'm right, I win. There is no losing in this debate (at least from my perspective).I'm running from nothing. I made an attempt to start from a simple point, "Testing tree rings/ oscillations /patterns +extrapolation) is not a strict test of time." I expected that maybe, just maybe someone might say, "you know you're right, *strictly speaking*." Because, strictly speaking the past isn't repeatable, and all we're testing are tree rings and things we observe today, and extrapolating these events to the distant past. Oh well. I was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true. There is one simple way to disabuse me of this impression: deal with the issue. Do you agree or not that tree rings count actual annual layers of years that are the result of the earth's orbit around the sun -- that the tree rings correlate with the annual orbits? (note: we don't need an exact correlation to calibrate the tree ring chronology -- it can be valid for 10,000 years +/- 5% say -- if that makes you more comfortable, after all good calibration identifies and quantifies sources of error eh?) If not, why and by what evidence -- support your position. If you agree we'll move on to the next issue. Stop shuckin and jivin and deal with the issue. Demonstrate that my impression is wrong. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 32 Tranquility Base asserts
I mentioned the varves or micro-layers of Mt St Helens to demonstrate that they can form rapidly. I can't help but notice that you failed to attempt to discuss the tree ring information, ... ... or the in fact annual varve layers of Lake Suigetsu (which are formed by an entirely different process than the micro-layers of Mt St Helen), ... ... prefering to restate your straw man position that is unrelated to actual dating methods actually used by actual scientists. From this I assume that this is the best information you have, and it is insufficient to disprove the ages measured by these systems:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)quote:And that is just for starters. THIS is the thread to discuss this issue -- if you care to back up your assertions. I also notice that YOU asked if there was a dendrochronology thread, and that until you address them here you are avoiding addressing the issue YOU raised. Enjoy. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In replying to Message 1, my post, Message 12, quoted material that also addressed misuse of radiocarbon dating to date diamonds:
quote:It would appear that your source is ignoring evidence that contradicts his precepts. That is not science, it is delusion. Confidence replied with Message 39:
They are thus not aware of the many potential sources of trace amounts of radiocarbon in the blanks and how a detector can register the presence of a few mass 14 events that are not radiocarbon. quote: And my response was Message 47:
I looked over the article, but could find absolutely no reference to the methodology used or the criteria applied to eliminate contamination. The closest I could find was:
quote: And in under "references and notes":
quote: This last statement is false, on two levels. First, the amount of 14C in a specimen does not depend on the method of measurement -- it is there or it isn't. Second, radioactive decay does not eliminate ALL radioactive elements by decay, no matter what the half life is there is always the possibility of some remaining in a sample. It is more likely that such small levels will be detected with more advanced and sensitive instruments. This of course is one of the sources of the background radiation levels that they say they have eliminated in the first statement. Of course dismissing the evidence of contamination and background as being "completely unhelpful in explaining its source" does not mean that this has been SHOWN to be the case, they are just denying the evidence that contradicts their position. The kicker is when they state "as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown" ... and don't give a single reference. Not one. Could it be that they are making a bare unsupported assertion while using KNOWN cases of contamination to INTENTIONALLY provide false samples?
quote: This too is a false statement: 14C dating is only good for samples less than 50,000 years. Anything older than that is misuse of the dating method -- and likely intentionally by Baumgardner et al -- because (could it be?) that is where background levels and contamination are KNOWN to make the results unreliable. "reference 3" is Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model available in PDF atError | The Institute for Creation Research quote: And "fossilized organic material" is by definition contaminated:
quote: But there is one more issue to deal with in this "paper" ...
quote: The issue of contamination is not just biological contamination - that is a straw man fallacy. Contamination can also come from non-organic sources, and it can also be radioactive. The easiest way to contaminate samples for 14C testing is to subject them to radiation that reconverts 14N to 14C and thus results in false elevated levels of 14C for detection. Curiously the false young dates for ancient coals and oil is directly related to radioactive contamination and not related to geological age of the sample -- thus indicating a high correlation with radioactive contamination. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: Unless of course you WANT false results ... then you go LOOKING for radioactive contamination of fossils. This demonstrates that the opening statement on radiocarbon dating in the "RATE" article is and outright falsehood:
quote: Not just because of the errors listed previously but because the sources they are intentionally using for samples are those specifically listed that are known to be contaminated by radioactivity from other sources. Curiously the issue of 14C dating has nothing to do with starlight and fantasy models of a universe and it's effect on explaining the astronomical age of the universe and the earth. What it does show is that Humphreys ... and Baumgardner and others ... are not interested in eliminating sources of errors to develop scientific conclusions, but in actually using known sources of errors to create false impressions for gullible people. Meanwhile the evidence of annual layers still shows the world is older than any YEC model I know of.
Message 40 Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments. quote: What part about the argument from authority being a logical fallacy DO you understand? A blind man shooting at a target will occasionally hit a bull's eye but that does not make him a marksman. The claims that Humphrey's work is not valid science is based on evaluation of that work by scientists that show where, how and why it is wrong. Those are the GOOD arguments. and btw, some of the best writers of Science Fiction are scientists. Where I noted that I could not find any information on how they had eliminated background radiation and contamination levels, just the assertion that they had done so. Confidence responded with Message 51:
It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though. My latest response, Message 52, is to direct this discussion to this thread:
Reply should be on Thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III As that thread deals specifically with age dating methods, and discusses Radiocarbon as it corroborates other systems. Of particular note is that the effect of climate on carbon 14 dating is also matched by the effect of climate on the annual layer systems, and that any criticism of carbon dating needs to address how this correlation occurs. Thus I have transfered the arguments to this post for continued discussions. It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include
There are known sources of non-atmospheric carbon - marine organisms that use or reuse old carbon (shellfish, consumers of shellfish, etc), called the "resevoir effect" - and there are known sources of radioactivity contaminated oils and coals and the like. Thus it is easy for an unscrupulous sample collector to achieve false results by intentionally collecting bad samples, and at least ONE indicator that someone is intentionally misusing the dating method is if they cite dates beyond the capability of the method. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6317 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include * the sample must come from an uncontaminated organic source (so any sample with intruded mineral or other material, as in partly fossilized, or any sample subject to radiation, is of questionable value),* the sample must come from an organism that acquired its carbon from atmospheric carbon (either plant material or consumers of plant material or consumers of consumers of plant material that used atmospheric CO2 and other gases that can include the atmospheric altered Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14), * it is incumbent on the sample collector to ensure that these conditions are met, and not on the testing lab, and * the maximum age that can be detected with repeatable reliability is 50,000 years (after that the sample size of remaining 14C is so small as to be highly variable due to the probabilities of radioactive decay, and it is near the level of normal background radiation that causes false positives) It is true that these are limitation to find out a accurate age of the specimen. However, if we detect c-14 in diamonds then either all this c-14 is contamination, or 'background' noise, or these diamonds were formed before all the c-14 had a chance to decay to c-12. In an evolutionary mind, it does not make sense to put diamonds to the carbon dating method. Since evolutionists believe the earth to be billions of years old, no c-14 should remain. So when Creationists find c-14, the first thing evolutionist do is ridicule them for trying carbon dating on something they think is so old. But creationists believe that diamonds, if the earth is young, could contain c-14 depending if the radioactive carbon was available when the diamond was made. Not only that but
[quote]14C/C ratios from all but the youngest samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’ ((AbE - links do not work, I am linking to possible sections that contain what you wanted to link....The Queen))The Radiometric Dating Game http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/Recent.ppt So, is this contamination?
quote: quote: So, given that it is contamination, you need to come up with a plausible reason for carbon to still interact with non-living species. How does c-14 find its way into these specimens? Is it by just osmosis? C02 just seeps in the cracks and reacts? The point is, labeling it as contamination doesn't help when you do not have a mechanism for it. For CO2 doesn't react readily just by passing the fossils or diamonds. Edited by AdminAsgara, : took out LONG nonworking links Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Confidence, the topic here is the correlations between dating methods. Your objections to C14 dating have to explain the ones given in this thread and explain the relationship between the "noise" C14 signel in diamonds and other materials and their relationship to radioactive sources that can create C14 in situ.
Ignoring these relationships means you are not offering a complete objection to C14 dating. You also need to explain the many, many cases where C14 dating correlates well with other dating methods when the ages are under the calculated limit of C14 dating. You have to explain why the residual (as called by geologists and physicists) problems arise starting just where the half life of C14 suggests that it should (circa 50 kyrs). You are floundering around trying to get something to defend your view without accounting for more than a small part of the available data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Confidence,
Nosy is correct that anomalous 14C measurements do not address the age correlations with other methods. So even if there were no explanation for the background levels of 14C, you still have a problem. Why does 14C dating correlate with lake varve dating and tree-ring dating and glacier layer dating? JonF noted back in Message 5 of the Carbon 14 in fossils? thread that there may be 14C production paths from other isotopes of carbon due to background radioactivity caused by the presence of radioactive elements in the ground such as uranium, thorium and radon. Diamonds are almost pure carbon, so neutrons from radioactive decay that strike the diamond have a high probability of striking carbon atoms, unless they go right through. But I wasn't able to find information on such production paths, and so I don't think it likely that 14C can be produced from other isotopes of carbon, not that we know of, anyway. However, note that I said that diamonds are *almost* pur carbon. The reality it that diamonds often contain impurities. Coloration is the most obvious sign of impurities. Remember that the main production path of 14C in the atmosphere is from 14N, and guess what the most common impurity in diamonds is? You guessed it: nitrogen! Nitrogen causes yellow coloration, so if the levels of 14C in diamonds are proportional to yellow coloration, then that's your answer. It would also expected that the 14C levels would be proportional to background radiation levels in the ground. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth, and has a non-zero neutron capture cross section. Therefore, diamonds + neutrons ---> diamonds with non-zero carbon-14 content. I don't know the jargon well enough this afternoon to figure out how much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for the reply, Confidence.
As you will already have noted there is a substantial need to not just critique 14C dating, but why all the various dating methods correlate so well. We can come back to this issue later, but first let me say that these involve several different annual layer systems, several radioactive systems and one astronomical system that all give data consistent with the rest of the data -- in spite of being three entirely different mathematical trends (linear, radioactive decay and planetary rotational decay) and that the annual layer systems also capture climate information that is also consistent between them. This gives a very high degree of reliability to the ages measured by these systems, ages much in excess of 6,000 years by any count.
So when Creationists find c-14, the first thing evolutionist do is ridicule them for trying carbon dating on something they think is so old. That they have such a high degree of reliability on the age of these things goes far further than just thinking up how old things are, it is a well measured and deliberated, discussed and dissected age that we are talking about. And where the reliablity is low, due to any number of factors, scientists are happy to note "age - indeterminate" and say "we don't know" rather than post some arbitrary date.
So, is this contamination?
quote: Can you absolutely guarantee that there has been absolutely no contamination by current modern air-born 14C in any of those samples? Can you absolutely guarantee that there was no contact with other contaminated material? Or is it reasonable to say that below a certain level we just cannot guarantee that a sample won't show some contamination from being handled, and say below this level we cannot measure with any accuracy? The fact that this limit -- 45,000 to 50,000 years -- is STILL far older than any YEC scenario should mean that this is not what the real problem is for YEC's creatortionistas (those who intentionally distort the truth). When done with proper scientific controls the ages measured by 14C are sufficiently consistent from the present through to 50,000 years ago to render critiques like the ones by the 'RATE' group to be insignificant. If they vary wildly after that, it still does not invalidate ages up to 50,000 years ago, does it? Age is also usually measured by at least two different methods, to ensure contamination is not involved or some other anomaly (like the resevoir problems), and both ages are usually reported for comparisons. When you get two consistent ages you have reliable data, and when you get two inconsistent ages you have unreliable data. The 'RATE' group looks for unreliable data to evaluate: that is not honest science. All they prove is that they have found a specific set of unreliable data, but that does nothing to invalidate those cases where the data IS reliable. One thing the 'RATE' group has NOT been able to do is collect samples that date anomolously by two different methods to the same anomolous young or old age: when they can do that - have a two to one advantage - then and only then will their claim of eliminating contamination and background radiation have some relevance.
So, is this contamination?
quote: I still only see denial of contamination and background radiation and not evidence to the contrary. As noted by Percy in Message 53 and Coragyps in Message 54 there is ample sources for radioactive contamination in diamonds, both from 13C being converted to 14C by neutron accumulation or by 14N being reconverted to 14C in a manner similar to how it is converted in the atmosphere. As noted in previous discussions regarding coal and 14C, there is also a high degree of correlation of anomalous high 14C content with radioactivity and none with age once past 50,000 years. BUT: the end argument is that age measured out to 50,000 years by 14C is an accurate and dependable method when done correctly and with the proper sample controls and with the constraints on 14C noted (and quoted by you). This age alone is enough to refute a YEC model of the earth: falsifying it at 51,000 years does you no good. If you don't believe me then start at the beginning of this thread, Message 1, and walk through the tree rings and the climate information, through Lake Suigetsu and into the 14C correlations, and then ask again. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth, And something like one in a trillion atmospheric carbon atoms are carbon-14, so the beginning amount of 14C in any organism is very very small, much less than 13C and much much less than 12C. And after 57,300 years (10 half-lives) it is reduced by decay to (1/2)^10 = 0.001 or 0.1% of that original amount. When do you reach the point where +/- one atom makes a big difference in the measured age eh? And how easy is it for one nitrogen atom or one 13C atom being converted to 14C to make a big difference in the measured age when you get to that point? Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
One I started using "neutron capture" in my Google searches I started getting meaningful hits. One of the hits said that Chernobyl was probably producing 6 Ci/year of 14C via neutron capture by 13C in the graphite control rods. Is that very much?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
They measure radioactivity around the house or workplace in picocuries - pCi or trillionth of a curie - so one Curie is pretty big. Approximately the radiation of a gram of pure radium-226. And radium and its salts are radioactive enough to heat themselves above the ambient temperature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
What prodicals were done in the testing of the cores taken, were they frozen before testing to prevent contamination.
What was the water content in the cores sampled, did they test for methane gases, Co2, carbonates, percent solids. What was the grams tested for C14, N14 etc... Biological Questions need to asked, humic colloidals how they form from anaerobic processes and how they sort off density pressure not to disclude dual porosity, etc..., bringing questions of tests that were not done in the lake suitsu study (mineral analysis of the clays, kerogen (the mineralization processes involved) of the fossil tested in not only the lake suitsu but other correlative lakes mentioned. One can not discount methane gas, was there Co2 gassing, nothing mentioned in the lake suitsu study or the other lakes correlated to lake suitsu, etc... Link questions contamination, sample integrity, questions that need to be answered because contamination trumps correlations. ttp://Lake Varves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hello again, whatever.
contamination cannot trump correlations because it cannot explain the correlations -- why they exist instead of random numbers. Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024