|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
And I also mentioned the evidence that shows that bacteria was not present - the leaves had no decayed. There are also insect wings in the organic samples. There was NO humus in the samples. No it only shows that lignin cellose is undigestable. In the link below in Israel they filter off that which is undigestable for a soil conditioner. Anaerobic digestion forms humic acids and because of its affinity to bind to organics and almost any element on the perodic table humic acids could only be a part of them varves and undigestible remains, etc... ====================================================================== A filter between the two fermenters removes the indigestible material. This produces a fibrous material, likely to be the indigestible lignin and ligno-cellulose. This material is highly valued in Israel as a soil conditioner and water retention additive for poor soils http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/...9085/1089064/1089090
No humus in the description of fossils found. This is a total refutation for your position. Humic acids are formed due to anaerobic digestion possibly giving your varves multiple layer structure because of liqufacation state of lake bed. Because of the affinity of humic acids to bonds organics and almost all the elements on the periodic table including lead it would be incorporated within your varves. ====================================================================== In the earth sciences, "humus" refers to any organic matter which has reached a point of stability, where it will break down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain essentially as it is for centuries, or millennia. Humus - Wikipedia Edited by reversespin, : No reason given. Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Anyone familar with biological science knows the absense of oxygen causes anaerobic digestion that causes humic acids but more interestingly forms C02 which releases C14 into solution. Anaerobic digestion gives carbon dioxide? You better check that, Whatever. I think you'll find that methane is the preferred product. Aerobes give CO2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Carbon 14 "leaching" hypothesis:
Some creationists have proposed that 14C is preferentially leached out of samples, thus resulting in a false old age of samples in the Lake Suigetsu data. First off we notice that their argument relies on transforming the actual samples from Lake Suigetsu into something else - the latest argument is that it decayed into humus - and they need to do this to make the 14C available for preferential digestion by a second set of microbes that then give off methane gas which bubbles up and out of the system. By this hypothesis they say 14C is removed from the samples. First one set of microbes is required to make the kerogen like sludge, the kind that turns leaf mulch into humus, digesting the organic debris in the lake and breaking it down. http://welcome.to/humics/structurems/humicms.htm
quote: Or some other source of easily available carbon (14 and 12) mixed in with the varve layers. http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87
quote: Then we need a different kind of microbe to consume this kerogen with a preference for 14C over 12C, and produce methane so that the 14C is transported out of the lower layers (if not out of the lake altogether). http://earth.geology.yale.edu/...99/07-09.1999.04Martens.pdf
quote: So a value of 10 means a 1% change from the standard amount of 13C that should be there. The data show that this δ13C (O/OO) varied a little over 1% in one core sample and a little over 2% in the other, a very slight bias. The microbes in question here prefer to metabolize sulfate and only turn to methane production when sulfate is depleted. Note that δ14C (O/OO) was not measured in this study, however the natural variation in 14C in the atmosphere is more that +/-2%, so it would be relatively unimportant even if it is selected by these sulfur preferring methane producing microbes in a manner similar to 13C. So for this 14C transport mechanism to work you need a breakdown\decay\digestion of the organic material in to a kerogen like sludge - that does NOT show up in the Lake Suigetsu varves - and an order of magnetude increase in bias selection of heavy isotope carbon by methane producing Now we look at the actual samples found in the cores: Just a moment...
quote: There is no mention of humus, or kerogen, nor are there any black layers in the varves - they are green (clay) or white (diatoms), with very occasional gray layers (volcanic ash). But even IF there were anaerobic microbes in the Lake Suigetsu varves that digested some leaves and other organic material into this kerogen like black sludge, and then there were a second kind of anaerobic microbes with a preference for 14C that digests this sludge and exhales methane which then bubbles up through the varve layers, this still does not mean this is a mechanism for taking 14C out of the inside of intact specimens: all the samples used to find the 14C dates are not affected by this extremely unlikely hypothetical process, and so it is irrelevant. But just for fun, let's look at what the data says about this hypothesis IF it could selectively remove 14C from leaf, twig and insect wing samples. We will ignore for now the total idiocy of arguing that leaching accounts for the Lake Suigetsu varve data so that the correlation between the varve age and the 14C age can be maintained (the annual varves cover a period of time in excess of any "Young Earth" scenario, and if we are not worried about a "Young Earth" scenario then there is no problem with 14C dating methods). Next we'll use data from Lake Suigetsu. We could probably get the actual data from the sources, but this isn't necessary for our needs -- we can extract sufficient accuracy from this graph to show the concept is false: {note: image originally from http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm, image copied to a mirror site to cut down on bandwidth usage for the original site} The data from Lake Suigetsu is the small solid dots and it starts somewhere about 8000 or 9000 years ago according to the article "A 45.000 YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM JAPAN"by H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht. First lets match a straight line to the data points:I've also highlighted the data from corals (purple circles) to show how they also fit the line. Note that this line covers and matches the line from the tree rings at the start of the diagram -- it has the same slope, so it correlates to that data as well. We'll use this line to extract some 'normalized' data and then see where a leaching hypothesis takes us From the line on this last image we see that it runs from the assumed zero point (at 0,0) to a 14C age of 38,000 years ago for an actual 45,000 years ago - based on the floating data match by Kitagawa and van der Plicht (a factor that we will eliminate from the process below) So the correlation of 14C to age is: where f(14C/12C) is previously defined asHow Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks: where t is the computed age, t1/2 is the half life (5715 years), Nf is the (final) ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and No is the (original) ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death. Using these two formulas we can calculate the 'normalized' proportions of 14C/12C for samples at different base ages per the above graph: The 14C age formula above rearranged becomesor Substituting (varve age * 38/45) for t14C and working out all the constants we get:or And this gives us a table of data that we can use to represent the Lake Suigetsu floating data:Varve Nf/No Next we'll remove the uncertainty of the floating start of the data by starting ours at the 8000 years ago and using deltas from that time and compare those to the actual Nf/No values:Time Actual And when we graph this data we get the following: Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" In excel I can model a "trendline" through the data points and I can also have it tell me what the function is and what the "R^2" value is (a measure of the accuracy of the trendline formula in matching the actual points -- 1.0 means an exact match at every point). When I do this for polynomial trendlines I can approach 1.0 with a function like
y = -1.41236465E-23x5 + 1.47427415E-18x4 - 7.33090220E-14x3 + 2.28417483E-09x2 - 4.50898602E-05x + 4.40788286E-01
(this uses 6 constants and has an R^2 value of 0.999999994) When I do this for an exponential trendline I get:
y = 0.4407940132e-0.0001023972x
(which uses 2 constants and has a perfect match -- to data assuming (1) an 8000 year gap and (2) an exponential function)R2 = 1.0000000000 Now the fun begins. We know there is an offset at the beginning of the data, but we don't know how big it is eh? What we can do is model it a different initial time (ti) and see what effect this has on the curve.If I set the ti at 2000 years ago I get: y = 0.5409744643e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 If I set the ti at 4,000 years ago I get:
y = 0.6639231983e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 If I set the ti at 6,000 years ago I get:
y = 0.8148148245e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 If I set the ti at 8,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.0000000000e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 If I set the ti at 10,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.2272727126e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 If I set the ti at 12,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.5061983111e-0.0001023972x R2 = 1.0000000000 In each case I get a 100% match to the points on the curve, the formula is of the form:Where y = Nf/No, x = time and A and B are constants. In each case I get B = -0.0001023972 which means I can write the general formula asor Nf/No = Ae^(-0.0001023972t) or Nf/No = A/e^(t/9766) You will also note that A = 1.0 for ti = 8000 years (no surprise as this becomes the formula used to generate the data points). The important point though, is that for any {delta t} you pick it doesn't matter what the real formula starting date is, the amount of change in Nf/No over that time period is perfectly modeled by the decay rate of 14C -- here carried out to 10 decimal places -- and only the decay rate of 14C. There is no "room" for 14C to preferentially leach out of the objects compared to 12C without affecting this data, therefore there is absolutely no significant effect of preferential leaching on the objects over the whole period of the data. If preferential leaching of 14C does not occur over 29,100 years it is not going to have occurred over a period shorter than that. Preferential leaching is falsified as a hypothesis. One can quibble about the accuracy of the starting date used, but the fact remains that 14C dating {predicts\measures\confirms}the same time periods as are found by counting the annual layers. Now remember that Nf is the (final) ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and No is the (original) ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death, and because 12C is stable (does not decay) this becomes:and if the (14C/12C) ratios are expressed as a percentage, then the 12C's cancel (each set to 100 relative to the 14C content) and you end up with: The other option for leaching is that it affects both 14C and 12C the same way. If this is the case then the measurement of (14C/12C) removes this effect from the data, and the results then accurately {predict\measure\confirm} the dates of the organic objects. But it gets even better when you look at even more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the 14C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVEquote: Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 1500 cm of depth and an age of about 10,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurments that are along an exponential distribution (see the "Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" " above), you know that there is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope unless it measured the same thing that the varve counting does - age. Conclusions: (1) there is no measurable significant effect of leaching on the dates derived from 14C analysis. The hypothesis is falsified. (2) there is no known way for some other system to cause a change to the amounts of 14C inside the specimens that were sampled in these studies. (3) the correlations keep piling up with additional information that cannot be explained by the ad hoc fantasies of those in denial of reality. (4) the earth is much older than any YEC scenario, and that continued denial of the evidence for an old earth is delusion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : changed file name of last graph 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Were talking dissolved organic matter not just carbon sources from Methane and C02 that are motive. Humic acids has an affinity to bond to more than 50 elements on the periodic table. Thats a whole lot of dissolved organic matter present in aquatic systems where did it come from if not anaerobic digestion?
====================================================================== About Humic Substances Aquatic scientists have been slower in appreciating their importance, but now realize that they may constitute as much as 95% of the total dissolved organic matter in aquatic systems and often are equal to or greater than the concentrations of inorganic ions present. In many cases they act as the major buffering system, which has serious implications for acidification of lakes and rivers. Humic substances have been documented to interact in some manner with over 50 elements from the periodic table. http://www.hagroup.neu.edu/abouthafrm.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And your point is....? Do you intend to clutter this thread with irrelevant factoids all the way to version 1 no. 4 or 5 or 6? Apparently, yes. I wonder if he's related to MartinV?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html
quote: This date for the Younger Dryas comes from the GISP-2 ice core data. Now look at that last image (figure 1 above) again:
Message 243 A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE quote: Draw a vertical line through 11,000 years and compare that to where the kink in the line occurs. Page not found | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
quote:(The yellow squiggly line is temperature in °C, with a low of -50°C+/- at ~12,800 BP and a high of -30°C+/- at ~10,000 years ago. Note how this compares to the warming during the Holocene in the "Russian study" from Message 216.) So it was substantiallycolder and dryer before 15,000 years ago for a significant time. Between 15,000 years ago and 11,600 years ago the climate oscillated to warm/cold/warm and since 11,600 years has stayed fairly constant (comparatively). The climate patterns changed significantly (evidence the oscillations warm/cold/warm) but since 11,600 years the significant warming compared to previous climate would result in changed degree of ice melt and hydrological activity (more evaporation, more precipitation). And at the same time the Lake Suigetsu sedimentary record shows a change to a higher rate of sedimentary deposit. A major (world) change in climate AND a change in the rate of sedimentation ... that just happen to be correlated in time. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : more info added Edited by RAZD, : -50°+/- Edited by RAZD, : changed file name of graph 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Around 15,000 years ago, the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an "ice age"; this is known as a glacial termination. The large ice sheets, which covered significant parts of North America and Europe, began melting as a result. A climatic optimum known as the "Blling-Allerd" was reached shortly thereafter, around 14,700 before present. However, starting at about 12,800 BP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e. cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD), since it is the most recent interval where a plant characteristic of cold climates, Dryas Octopetala, was found in Scandinavia. I keep hearing significant area's of north america and europe have evidence of glaciation for 100,000 of years. Then how come Australia does not have kettle lakes or evidence of massive glaciation. I mean I can understand parts of south america New Zealand having glaciers from the biblical flood but not Australia. P.S. I just don't believe your ice varve correlations are valid though suppose it might correlate that the biblical flood happened thousands of years ago by the ice varves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I mean I can understand parts of south america New Zealand having glaciers from the biblical flood but not Australia. Perhaps this would be your first clue that what you understand is wrong - it doesn't match the facts, so some of the precepts must be wrong.
P.S. I just don't believe your ice varve correlations are valid though suppose it might correlate that the biblical flood happened thousands of years ago by the ice varves. Perhaps the second clue is that all you have left for your argument is belief that the evidence must be wrong, instead of your understanding of the evidence. One cannot be in harmony with the natural world when one's understanding of it is in conflicts with it. Edited by RAZD, : changed sig Edited by RAZD, : one 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 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
P.S. I just don't believe your ice varve correlations are valid though suppose it might correlate that the biblical flood happened thousands of years ago by the ice varves. Here's another correlation: http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf
quote: This independent study uses 14C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the 14C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and 14C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu:
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVEquote: Gives me a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. The same 14C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments (and the second full of humus - decayed peat). This not only validates the 14C age but it invalidates the concept that the presence of humus can cause a change in the 14C age, as there should be a different effect in two (2) different environments, one full of observed humus and the other having no apparent humus. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rhegar Junior Member (Idle past 5977 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
An excellent thread!
You might also want to see the page Evidence against a recent creation on RationalWiki. It is not incredibly well written but it has a few arguments that you don't cover in your thread. Edited by Rhegar, : Accidentally saved when I meant to preview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5671 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
What does all this prove? Does it prove the earth is billions of years old, or does it prove that all the dating methods correlate with each other? Here is your big hmmm...Rather than attack each specific point. Although that can surely be done.
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#different%20methods Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
You have listed a web site. What, exactly , do you think it says about the correlations?
We do not argue web sites. If we did we could just assign you 200 years of reading in the geological sciences. This thread contains a wealth of information showing that you are wrong. You contribution is one line. Since each point can "surely" be attacked I suggest you get started or withdraw as all others have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5671 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
You have listed a web site. What, exactly , do you think it says about the correlations? It explains why there seems to be correlation between the different dating methods. It was just easier for me, than trying to answer each specific point. It also proves that what you asserted about no creation sites being able to answer your assertions.
If we did we could just assign you 200 years of reading in the geological sciences. All of the assertions made in the OP came from somewhere. Whether it be the literature or web sites. So in a way you have.
This thread contains a wealth of information showing that you are wrong. Well, I haven't looked at the entire thread, but I doubt it. Elephant hurling doesn't prove your point.
Since each point can "surely" be attacked I suggest you get started or withdraw as all others have done. Well, it will take a lot of time. But I will put forth some effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Well, it will take a lot of time. But I will put forth some effort. Thank you. That is what it will take. I'm sure RAZD will help you along by correcting any mistakes or points that you have missed. You'd be best to start by actually reading the material and seeing for yourself if you site does explain what is seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5671 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
By counting tree rings and matching the overlapping patterns of growth from live to dead trees, scientists have developed a tree-ring chronology of nearly 10,000 years using wood from the Schulman Grove area, California (one tree still living is 4,839 years old). This rests on the assumption that one can overlap similar-looking sequences reliably. Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ”dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards. All this is based on the assumption that one can extrapolate the carbon clock backwards. Conventional carbon 14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that carbon 14 is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. One only has to go as far back as the industrial age to prove this isn't true. Ring patterns are not unique. Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47-54, 1986) recognized this. The best match using statistical tests is often rejected in favor of a less exact match because the exact match is deemed to be incorrect. Why? Because the carbon 14 age may be too far away from the assumed age. So the carbon 14 age is what is used to deem what is acceptable and what is not. No wonder there is corellation! Circular reasoning plain and simple. Then, of course, you have all the problems with the assumptions involved in carbon dating to begin with. So this does not prove your point.
Lake Suigetsu Varves By counting varve layers of diatoms (* if link doesn't work, try the science magazine site (need sign in) or see below) in Lake Suigetsu in Japan, scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to establish a chronology extending the calibration of radiocarbon dating to 45,000 years ago as well as confirming the tree ring data (note - the carbon 14 abbreviation used in article changed to "C-14" here for consistency): First of all, both the varves and tree rings are used to calibrate carbon-14 so as such they are not independent confirmation of each other. Second, there is a systematic error, where carbon-14 tends to suggest a younger date than indicated by varves and tree ring counts. When they are normalized for original carbon-14 content, the uniformitarian model would require a loss of atmospheric carbon-14 of 550 % of the current value over the past 30,000 years. This trend goes away completely when other varves are included. Actually the evidence is more consistent with a rapid post Flood increase in carbon-14 and the observed patterns are actually predicted by it. National Geographic joins the Dating Game http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/Carbon14.html
Carbon 14 Radiometric Dating The Carbon 14 (C-14) data not only corroborates the tree ring and lake varve data, but the measurement system is validated by these studies (especially the varve study) as accurate. How many times do the flaws of carbon 14 dating have to brought up. Carbon-14 dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
quote: Ice Cores in Greenland The Greenland Ice Core dating is well established: Well established? More faulty assumptions.
Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?
| Answers in Genesis
quote: That's enough for now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024