Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

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 soilshttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/...9085/1089064/1089090 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 - WikipediaEdited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

Anaerobic digestion gives carbon dioxide? You better check that, Whatever. I think you'll find that methane is the preferred product. Aerobes give CO2.

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:

---

Solution IR and NMR spectra of some fractionated humic acid derivatives were similar to those of kerogen, bitumen, petroleum, and coal.

---

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:

---

When microorganisms die in ponds of water or in the ocean, they slowly sink to the bottom, forming a thick black sludge. Over time, this sludge becomes buried and compacted by more organisms and layers of mud. If oxygen is left out of the mixture, the organic matter can’t decay and it eventually fossilizes into the material called kerogen.

---

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:

---

Direct radiotracer measurements indicate that AMO rates of over 15mM yr-1 are focused at the base of the sulfate reduction zone. Diagenetic equations that describe the depth distributions of the δ¹³C and δD values of methane reproduce isotopic shifts observed throughout the methane oxidation zone and are best fit with kinetic isotope fractionation factors of 1.012 +/- 0.001 and 1.120 +/- 0.020 respectively.

​

Even more fascinating was the fact that variations in the concentration of dissolved methane in the sediments of Long Island Sound appeared to be inversely correlated to the concentration of dissolved sulfate in the pore waters. ... The field data demonstrated that dissolved methane occurred at shallower depths in anoxic sediments featuring almost complete sulfate depletion.

​

δ(^O/_OO) = {(R_sample/R_standard - 1} x 1000where R is the ratio of heavy to light isotope in the sample or the reference standard, and heavier (more positive) values have more of the heavier isotopes (¹³C or deuterium).

---

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 producingNow we look at the actual samples found in the cores:Just a moment...

quote:

---

The ¹⁴C/¹²C and ¹³C/¹²C ratios of more than 250 terrestrial macrofossils (leaves, twigs, and insect wings) in the sediments were measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Groningen AMS facility (13), after proper sample pretreatment (14).

---

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 usFrom 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:
varve age = ¹⁴C age x 45/38 = 1.1842f(¹⁴C/¹²C)where f(¹⁴C/¹²C) is previously defined as
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks:
t = [ln(N_f/N_o)/(-0.693)]xt_1/2
where t is the computed age, t_1/2 is the half life (5715 years), N_f is the (final) ratio of ¹⁴C/¹²C atoms in the sample and N_o 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 becomes
-0.693*t_¹⁴C/5715 = ln(N_f/N_o)
or
(N_f/N_o) = e^{^(-0.693*t_14C/5715)}Substituting (varve age * 38/45) for t_¹⁴C and working out all the constants we get:
(N_f/N_o) = e^{^(-0.693*(38 varve age/45)/5715)}
or
(N_f/N_o) = 1/e^{^(varve age/9766)}And this gives us a table of data that we can use to represent the Lake Suigetsu floating data:

Varve Nf/No
Age Ratio
----- ------
0 1.0000
8000 0.4408
10000 0.3592
12000 0.2927
14000 0.2385
16000 0.1943
18000 0.1583
20000 0.1290
22000 0.1051
24000 0.0856
26000 0.0698
28000 0.0569
30000 0.0463

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 N_f/N_o values:

 Time Actual
Interval Nf/No
-------- --------
0 0.4408
2000 0.3592
4000 0.2927
6000 0.2385
8000 0.1943
10000 0.1583
12000 0.1290
14000 0.1051
16000 0.0856
18000 0.0698
20000 0.0569
22000 0.0463

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 (this uses 6 constants and has an R^{^2} value of 0.999999994)When I do this for an exponential trendline I get: (which uses 2 constants and has a perfect match -- to data assuming (1) an 8000 year gap and (2) an exponential function)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 (t_i) and see what effect this has on the curve.

If I set the t_i at 2000 years ago I get:

y = 0.5409744643e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000

​

If I set the t_i at 4,000 years ago I get:

y = 0.6639231983e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000

​

If I set the t_i at 6,000 years ago I get:

y = 0.8148148245e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000

​

If I set the t_i at 8,000 years ago I get:

y = 1.0000000000e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000

​

If I set the t_i at 10,000 years ago I get:

y = 1.2272727126e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000

​

If I set the t_i 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:
y = Ae^{^(Bx)}
Where y = N_f/N_o, x = time and A and B are constants.In each case I get B = -0.0001023972 which means I can write the general formula as
y = Ae^{^(-0.0001023972x)}
or
N_f/N_o = Ae^{^(-0.0001023972t)}
or
N_f/N_o = A/e^{^(t/9766)}
You will also note that A = 1.0 for t_i = 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 N_f/N_o 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 N_f is the (final) ratio of ¹⁴C/¹²C atoms in the sample and N_o is the (original) ratio of ¹⁴C/¹²C atoms at the time of death, and because ¹²C is stable (does not decay) this becomes:
N_f/N_o = (¹⁴C/¹²C)_f/(¹⁴C/¹²C)_o
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:
N_f/N_o = ¹⁴C_f/¹⁴C_oThe 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 CURVE

quote:

---

RESULTS

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and ¹⁴C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The ¹⁴C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

---

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

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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 SubstancesAquatic 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

Apparently, yes.I wonder if he's related to MartinV?

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

quote:

---

The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event [Dansgaard et al., 1989] because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 1300+/-70 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an ~7C rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at ~11.64 kyr BP [Alley et al., 1993] (Figure 2).

---

This date for the Younger Dryas comes from the GISP-2 ice core data. Now look at that last image (figure 1 above) again: 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:

---

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. The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), ...

---

(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 addedEdited by RAZD, : -50°+/-Edited by RAZD, : changed file name of graph

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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.

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. 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 sigEdited by RAZD, : one

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Here's another correlation:http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

quote:

---

Estimation of the eruption ages of five tephra layers at Ohnuma Moor based on AMS-¹⁴C dates

​

As the results of tephra correlation in the present paper and Katoh et al. (2006), six tephra layers included in the finer sediments about 17-m thick at the Ohnuma Moor were correlated with K-Ah, SUk, MsP, Sh, AT, and Nh in descending stratigraphic order. There was no age estimation of the tephra layers except for K-Ah and AT based on the precise AMS-¹⁴C dating. We also obtained stratigraphically concordant AMS-¹⁴C ages from the same sediments (Table 2 and Fig. 2) that permit the estimation of eruption ages of SUk, MsP, Sh, and Nh. In addition to these tephra layers, we determine the eruption age of AT and compare it wisuth the previous precise age estimation (Matsumoto et al., 1987; Murayama et al., 1993; Miyairi et al., 2004) to asses our results.

---

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 CURVE

quote:

---

---

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.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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.

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%20methodsEdited by Creationist, : No reason given.

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.

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. 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. Well, I haven't looked at the entire thread, but I doubt it. Elephant hurling doesn't prove your point. 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.

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. 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 Gamehttp://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/Carbon14.html How many times do the flaws of carbon 14 dating have to brought up.Carbon-14 dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

quote:

---

There is one fact that makes it highly unreasonable to believe that the proportion of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as it has been in recent history: It is not in equilibrium.

​

The rate of C-14 production today is 18% higher than the rate of decay (Whitelaw). This means that today we are experiencing a net increase in the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine whether it has always been increasing (as argued by some creationists) or whether it has undergone cycles of increase and decrease (as argued by other creationists and evolutionary scientists). But one thing is certain: there is no reason to believe that the C-14:C-12 proportion has been constant throughout time, and good reason to believe it has been different, and often lower, in the past than it is today.

​

If the C-14 content of the atmosphere was lower in the past, that means that Carbon dating results today are inflated, because the calculations will mistake the absence of C-14 in the original sample as years which passed by causing the C-14 to decay.

​

Recognizing this, many uniformitarian scientists calibrate their dating efforts to the early 19th century, in the belief that today's C-14 increase is due to the industrial revolution. This assumes, however, that today's C-14 increase is only the result of the industrial revolution (which is unfalsifiable) and that the proportion was in equilibrium prior to the 19th century (which is also unfalsifiable). In other words, while acknowledging the problem posed by the increasing C-14, the uniformitarian scientists have failed to solve it, and yet continue to use the methodology.

---

Well established? More faulty assumptions. Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years? | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

The main assumption is that the earth is very old ” billions of years old. They assume that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets have existed for many millions of years. Furthermore, they believe these ice sheets have more or less maintained their present height in a state of equilibrium during all this time. They think the amount of snow and ice added each year is approximately balanced by the ice that is lost by melting and calving of icebergs into the ocean. Because of their assumptions, uniformitarian scientists believe that the annual layers thin drastically as they are covered by more snow and ice (figure 12.3). The upshot of their assumptions is that the amount of annual layer compression believed to have occurred depends upon how old one believes the ice to be. For an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions of years, the annual layers would, theoretically, thin rapidly and become almost paper-thin near the bottom of the ice.

---

That's enough for now.