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

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

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

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 240 of 357 (437189)
11-29-2007 7:51 AM

Reply to: Message 238 by johnfolton
11-29-2007 2:30 AM

Re: Its a BOGUS Young Earth Folks !!!!!!

The earth is alive with bacteria Razd said if present which means he agreed it would affect the ratio.

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.

Conclusion: no bacteria reached the samples before or after they were covered with silt and diatoms.

This is the correlation that you need to explain:

quote:
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count.

Also from AMS 14C DATING OF VARVED SEDIMENTS FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, CENTRAL JAPAN AND ATMOSPHERIC 14C CHANGE DURING THE LATE PLEISTOCENE

quote:
The terrestrial macrofossil samples for AMS 14C dating were collected from ca. 7-m sediments (969.5 cm to 1580 cm) of Core SG4. Single pieces of terrestrial macrofossils such as leaves, small branches and insect wings were selected and washed repeatedly with distilled water and then cleaned chemically by acid-alkali-acid (AAA) treatments to remove secondary contamination.

No humus in the description of fossils found. This is a total refutation for your position.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 238 by johnfolton, posted 11-29-2007 2:30 AM		johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 241 by johnfolton, posted 11-29-2007 4:45 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 243 of 357 (437396)
11-29-2007 9:50 PM

Reply to: Message 241 by johnfolton
11-29-2007 4:45 PM

Its aNOTHER BOGUS Young Earth Argument Folks !!!!!!

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 producing

Now 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 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:
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 N_f/N_o
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 N_f/N_o
-------- --------
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

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
R2 = 1.0000000000

(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_o

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 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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 241 by johnfolton, posted 11-29-2007 4:45 PM		johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 244 by johnfolton, posted 11-30-2007 2:18 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 246 of 357 (437631)
11-30-2007 8:11 PM

Reply to: Message 244 by johnfolton
11-30-2007 2:18 AM

Those correlations just keep piling up. Those irrelevant points keep being irrelevant

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:

Message 243
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.

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 added

Edited 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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 244 by johnfolton, posted 11-30-2007 2:18 AM		johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 247 by johnfolton, posted 12-01-2007 4:21 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 248 of 357 (437756)
12-01-2007 10:03 AM

Reply to: Message 247 by johnfolton
12-01-2007 4:21 AM

Why does evidence not match belief?

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

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 247 by johnfolton, posted 12-01-2007 4:21 AM		johnfolton has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 249 of 357 (437771)
12-01-2007 12:40 PM

Reply to: Message 247 by johnfolton
12-01-2007 4:21 AM

Another correlation - volcanic ash

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:
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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 247 by johnfolton, posted 12-01-2007 4:21 AM		johnfolton has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 259 of 357 (443421)
12-24-2007 10:34 PM

Reply to: Message 255 by Creationist
12-24-2007 6:28 PM

Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.

Thanks, Creationist, for the effort here.

As noted your problem is not just to criticize each different method, that's easy to do with ad hoc explanations, but to actually explain the correlations that occur -- the rest of the evidence. Why do the season data match? Why do the long term climate data match? Why do the 'event' (volcano, little ice age, etc) data match?

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata,

I've dealt with this issue before, and I only need to note these things:

he was able to identify all five rings as being false rings without any problem,
if he was making a chronology he could deduct 5 years from this tree,
he doesn't tell you about missing or partial rings, rings that don't grow for the year in question, or that are incomplete (say from a summer on a mountain top being too cold for growth) and which may be missed by the core, and which would make the trees too young if this effect was not determined,
he doesn't tell you how he determined the missing rings, or provide any data from this "research", or a link to where the information could be found, so we also don't know what the %error would be involved if these were counted in error,
dendrochronology uses multiple cores from multiple trees from multiple sites to build up a chronology rather than rely on one tree, and reduce these uncertainties and finally
he uses intentional mis-direction to talk about a completely different species - in an entirely different subgenus, that grows in a completely different environment, and that has been bred for fast growth by the forest industry - with the stated implication that they are the same tree. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud . Being in the same genus Pinus is not enough to be closely related - Pinus includes all pine trees all over the world, and this includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.

(See Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud, for a more complete critique of the falsehoods, missing information and blatant misinformation of Don Batten in this one article.)

This raises the question, that if what he was telling you was in any way a valid criticism of the science of dendrochronology (which has known about false rings much longer than Don Batten), then why can't he tell you the honest truth? The corollary is why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?

The biggest problem is that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5% (in spite of being from not only a different Genus, but a different Division within the Plant Kingdom). They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios.

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.

Hardly the big problem you seem to think. For one thing he is talking about one of three dendrochronologies covering the same time period, for another this information is 6 years out of date - he is using information from IntCal98 and new information from IntCal04 (PDF) shows they have now found samples to complete the dendrochronology without needing to use 14C to place specimens.

Why doesn't Don Batten tell you the truth about the other two dendrochronologies? Why doesn't Don Batten update his information with the new information from IntCal04? Why do creationists need to lie if what they are saying is true? There are even more problems with this that we will get to should you care to confront the issue of correlations.

Again I note that the Bristlecone pine chronology agrees with the two oak chronologies to +/-0.5%. They agree on age, climate and 14 ratios, a three way correlation.

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.

Nope. Not at all. We know that it has been different at different times in the deep past, and we know that it varies on an 11 year sunspot cycle that affects the mechanism that produces 14C in the atmosphere. We make no assumptions at all, but look for evidence for what levels were in the past. This is the whole purpose of IntCal98 and IntCal04.

You can also think of the "carbon-14 age" as just being a mathematical transformation of the actual 14C/12C ratio in specimens, and then all you need to realize is that no two pieces can be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratios. It doesn't matter what the decay rate is now or whether it has been different in the past, this still holds true. This is just a simple truth based on the way 14C gets from the atmosphere into living organisms, especially trees.

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.

And what has happened since 1986? One thing that has happened is IntCal04 ... and the three tree ring chronologies that do not use 14C dates to place samples ... so this is just outdated information that no longer applies. This is another common way that creationists misrepresent science, by using outdated information that seems to be a problem.

This simple fact is that tree ring dating is more accurate (0.5%) than 14C dating (1%). See if you can think how that can possibly happen if it depends on 14C dating. And even it the error were 10% there would still be a problem for young earth creationists.

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.

They are independent without calibration arriving at independent measures of ages beyond any YEC fantasy, meanwhile the calibration curve shows the correlation between them. Calibration is used to make the 14C ages more accurate because the annual counting systems are more accurate than the 14C method and are not subject to atmospheric variation. Thus varve & ring counting make 14C dates better than they are without them.

Second, there is a systematic error, where carbon-14 tends to suggest a younger date than indicated by varves and tree ring counts.

Caused by different levels of 14C in the atmosphere back then, so actually the tree and varve data show that those 14C dates are too young without calibration.

Just a moment... (3)

quote:

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

(3)Kitagawa, H., et al., "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production" Science 279, 1187 (1998); DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1187
accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Just a moment...

That data is from 1998 and the new data since then added to the data above gives us this distribution:

Compare the differences -- and the similarities.

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.

I'd like to know what they mean by normalized and where the 550% number comes from. From what I have seen it is bogus, any bets? Look at those graphs above again -- where's that 550% data?

This trend goes away completely when other varves are included.

Does it? Or does it just make the earth older when the data is corrected for new information?

The real question is how much error is involved rather than the hyperbole of the typical creationist website.

See Message 249

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:

Notice the correlation with age and depth and with the rate of deposit of the sediments, especially where it changes. The only issue with Lake Suigetsu I see is when they get beyond the level of the diatom layers, at about 37,930 years BP (before 1950, or 35,980 BCE).

Actually the evidence is more consistent with a rapid post Flood increase in carbon-14 and the observed patterns are actually predicted by it.

I'd like to see a "flood model" produce different levels of 14C with each layer it makes that is consistently less 14C with depth on an exponential curve. You have no idea what you are up against here.

If there is actually even one "flood model" that explains varves at all.

How many times do the flaws of carbon 14 dating have to brought up.

quote:
There is one fact ... the proportion of C-14 to C-12 ... It is not in equilibrium.

How many times do the blatant lies of creationists need to be exposed? There will never be an equilibrium because it is produced by cosmic radiation that varies on an 11 year cycle (as well as longer cycles). Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. Any article that starts out stating this is lying to you.

Again, if creationism is true why do creationists need to lie about it? Why do they need to tell such easy to demonstrate lies? Why do they need to base their arguments on lies?

Well established? More faulty assumptions.

Yet no such assumptions are made. Read the articles on the actual measurements of age in the ice cores and tell me where they make those assumptions. You can usually bet that when a creationist website tells you what "uniformitarian scientists" have done that the website is lying to you. Note:

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia

quote:
Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology.
(Wikipedia, 2007)

That is all "uniformitarian scientists" assume -- "that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe" -- there is nothing about uniform rates or processes, nothing about old age. This assumption has also been tested (scientists are like that) and so far there is no reason to think that the physical laws did not apply in the past as they do today.

What is actually done is to find ways to identify ice formed at different times of the year due to the extreme difference between summer (sun, cool) and winter (no sun, very cold) there are physical differences in the ice that is formed. Another thing they can count in the less compressed layers are dust layers during the summer, some of volcanic origin that (surprise) correlates with known historical and prehistorical eruptions. The layers are counted with no previous assumption about age at all. AiG is another site that lies to you.

Don't you wonder why so many creationists sites lie about reality? It seems you can't pick one and find reliable information ... Why can't they just tell you the truth if creationism is true? If what they are saying has any relation to reality they should have no problem with presenting the facts of what science actually does instead of continuously misrepresenting it.

The question for you, now that we have reached this point, and you have run through the standard creationist ad hoc criticisms of various dating methods is: why do they get the same results, the same patterns of climate, the same correlations to volcanic activity, the correlations to radioactive decay curves that are exponential, not linear, how come it all just plain works, both together and apart - the way science says it does?

Another question for you is how you test for truth. Do you compare concepts against evidence or some preconceived concept? Do you check websites for lies or accept them if you "like" what they say?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added graphic

Edited by RAZD, : added time to "at about"

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 255 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 6:28 PM		Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 261 of 357 (444014)
12-27-2007 8:13 PM

Reply to: Message 260 by Creationist
12-27-2007 5:17 PM

your url needs fixing - another formating tip

type:

[url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]

and it becomes:

this message is linked to an url

Please edit the one you have in Message 260 so we can read it.

I'll see about answering this after it is edited. Nice Gish Gallop.

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM		Creationist has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 263 of 357 (445545)
01-02-2008 9:33 PM

Reply to: Message 260 by Creationist
12-27-2007 5:17 PM

why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?

When a method is determined have faults, then it should be examined. That’s the way science works.

But just criticism is not a determination of faults, the determination is done by applying evidence and showing that something is not quite right.

Even then, all you have done is show that there is an anomalous problem, and until you have a new theory that explains all the previous evidence covered by the previous theory AND the anomalous evidence do you have a reason to change the theory -- that's the way science works.

Science works this way because the current theory is still better than any other at explaining the evidence until that new theory comes along.

But you also have situations where a seeming anomalous piece of evidence is itself contradicted by other evidence that confirms the original evidence. That is the situation you have here, where multiple lines of evidence add up to the same answer -- that the earth is old, very old.

How can I, if you won’t accept where they don’t? But here is a good article on why they seem to agree.
The Radiometric Dating Game...

Why don't you pick one thing on Ted's article and see if you can verify that it is true? From my point of view Plaisted is a liar, a computer scientist, and not a biologist, geologist or physicist. For instance he starts the following article with a lie (either intentional or unintentional, which displays a gross ignorance that makes everything he says just as questionable as if the lie is intentional):

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

quote:
The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes.

Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?

Why do creationists need to lie?

If the first sentence of the first article on the homepage on his website is a lie, then how can you trust a single thing he says?

But they don’t. Not in every single case. If you were honest, you would admit that. Or don’t you know it?

Gee, not all volcanoes have global effects. I'm shocked! There are climatological variations in the younger dryas from north pole to south pole. I'm devastated!

The overall climate picture is still the major correlation that shows through tree rings, the lake varves and the different ice core systems, a correlation that makes allowances for local variations and that still picks up on other more dominant events.

That is not what he was doing, obviously. But thanks for acknowledging that he was right. But how do you know which 5 to deduct? Obviously, this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year. You can deduct those five, ...

The real question is why doesn't he tell you the answers to those questions in the article? Why does he hide the truth? "Obviously" you are making a wishful assumption on an absolute absence of information in order to pretend to yourself that he is telling the truth - you have no reason at all for saying that "this experiment was done a particular tree in a particular year." No reason at all - because that information is omitted from the article, the information on how he actually identified those and other false rings. He doesn't tell you the truth.

Why doesn't he tell you about the errors that can cause added age to the chronology -- errors that actually apply to the Bristlecone pines rather that his Pinus radiata?

Why doesn't he tell you about how different Pinus radiata is from the Bristlecone pine? Why doesn't he tell you about the ecological growing season differences? Why doesn't he tell you the truth?

No, but then all that serves to do is prove how uncertain it really is.
His point of course was to show that it happens. Do you deny it?
So, you do admit that it happens? Reducing is not eliminating.

No science eliminates all errors. An 0.5% error in 7,600 years is pretty good don't you think? Or do you deny it?

What Don Batten "knows" about dendrochronology he learned from dendrochronologists, including how to detect false rings.

You really haven't figured it out have you? Don likely went to a tree farm growing a kind of tree intentionally bred to be a fast grower (puts on a lot of layers fast), in an ecology where there is little climate differentiation between winter and summer and where storms or diseases are more sever effects - he went to a place and a kind of tree that he knew would give him false information, and he tells you that it is "like" the Bristlecone pine growth and climate. He lied to you. He played you for a gullible mark. He conned you. "Obviously" ... he intentionally set out to create such a lie, knowing how he could do it, what species of pine and what location would provide the him with the most bogus results.

This is what creationists do when they lie to you - they don't tell you the whole story, and they don't provide the data, because the whole story and the data would show the lies for what they are.

... but what about some tree that no experiment has been done on? One that is supposedly 10,000 years old? Which rings would you deduct?

You haven't looked at how it is done by the (professional) dendrochronologists have you? I gave you the links - the links that show how Don Batten would find the 5 rings just as any scientist would in counting rings. The trees that are 4,000 to 5,000 years old (not 10,000) are done in the standard way that accounts for all known kinds of error not just false rings.

Don Batten has no special knowledge of dendrochronology, no special insight, and he does not have any tools or techniques that are not used by dendrochronologists (he isn't one) in making chronologies, and his "results" are trivial existing knowledge to scientists that do this work daily. The only thing special he has done is to present the information as if there is something special about it to gullible ignorant people in a way tailored to play to their gullible ignorance - by omitting information and not telling the truth about what he did, and by suggestion of things that just are not true.

Can you explain the need to lie about dendrochronology -- if creationism is right?

Why do creationists need to lie?

No, he said they were in the same genus. You are the one who is trying some kind of mis-direction here.

I'm trying to tell you the truth: they are not the same kind of tree, they are not growing in the same kind of ecology. You have been conned.

They are in the same genus as all 115 other species of pine, but curiously NOT in the same subspecies, which would be a closer relationship. Or the same subsection, like the Foxtail pine, which would be even closer eh? Why not? This information would be available to a "scientist" like Don Batten - why did he choose Pinus radiata if not to create a lie?

Because one lives in swampy rain-forest conditions near the equator with virtually no seasons and the other lives on top of the Sierra Nevadas with a 42 day growing season and -32°C winter, but other than that they are hunky-dory identical eh???? Let me know when you wake up.

How do you know what environment the Bristlecone pine was in 8000 years ago? Has it lived its entire life without a change in climate? What experiment can you do to prove that assertion?
How do you know they agree on climate 2000 years ago? How do you know they agree 400 years ago?
As I said before, how do you know that they agreed on climate a 1000 years ago?

The science is called dendroclimatology -- the trees tell you when the climate changes, and change it does, just not enough to make a difference to the overall picture. There are Bristlecone pines that live further from the peaks than the ones used for the chronology and they have broader rings than the upper peak ones ever had, and that tells you that those peaks never got to the climate that exists lower on the slopes today.

. Why is it ok to use two different species to cross check but no ok to use a different species of the same genus to prove the uncertainties of the method? Little double standard there, isn’t it?

No, because the species used for the cross-checking live in the same ecology, and are from the same subgenus and subsection of the subgenus -- they are intentionally picked to be as close to the Bristlecone pines as possible.

Further, Don Batten did not "prove" any uncertainty in the method - he proved the certainty of the method by identifying every single false ring. The fact that you think there is an uncertainty is because of the false way the information is presented in the article, because he is not telling you the truth.

There are two things you don't seem to understand here: (1) Don Batten is not telling you the truth about how he found the rings, or about the relationship of the trees, or about anything relevant to the issue (and if he is not telling you the truth, what is he telling you?), and (2) the information that Don Batten does provide in no way shows any problem form dendrochronology -- all the false rings were identified by standard procedures used by dendrochronologists.

Like I said, why is it ok to use a different tree from a different climate, from even a different genus and say this proves the accuracy of tree ring dating, while discounting the problems associated with a tree from the same genus?

Simple: (a) because it does prove the accuracy of the tree ring dating, and (b) because it confirms that the information provided by Don Batten is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth (lie), and (c) because it shows that false rings do not significantly affect the accuracy of dendrochronologies even though he looked for the worst example he could find.

What about the earth’s magnetic field? Does that effect it? Is the ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 the same all over the world for any specific time period? How would a global flood effect it?

You're on your own with the global flood effect. I think it would interfere with tree growth, but then I'm a skeptic on the flood question. Certainly the dead wood around the Bristlecone pines has not been washed away ...

Neither of those would affect the 11 year cycle of the sunspots. There are minor variations in 14C/12C in the atmosphere at any one time, but not enough to affect results. This is confirmed with 14C/12C measurements on the tree rings for the oaks and the Bristlecone pines for the same ages.

Interesting that you brought that up. http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/Carbon14.html

This still does not change the fact that tree rings the same age will have the same 14C/12C ratio, because they absorb carbon from the same atmosphere while they grow. It's that simple.

From their "definition" of evolution:

quote:
Evolution: The definition depends on the situation. It can refer to the entire Big Bang to man idea or as narrowly as micro evolution. ( Observed variation in organisms ) The definition used depends on the need of the moment and can change without warning.

Is this a joke?

If they are going to lie about this, what else do they lie about? Can you explain the need to lie about what evolution is and what evolution explains -- if creationism is right?

Don't you think there are better sites for information than ones where people lie? Don't you get tired of being lied to?

That's enough for tonight.

We still have the correlations between Bristlecone pine, Irish oak, German oak, solar sun spot cycle and 14C levels that all add up to the same result.

Again, all you have done is provide the usual mishmash of creationist information while completely avoiding the issue of correlations. Without an explanation of the correlations the information is useless.

I may get to the rest, I may not. Deal with the correlations first.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 260 by Creationist, posted 12-27-2007 5:17 PM		Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 266 of 357 (445860)
01-04-2008 7:27 AM

Reply to: Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object
01-02-2008 10:17 PM

Re: Benchmark Dating

RAZD: how does ANY of the dating techniques explained in the opening post determine their starting benchmark date?

They start with today and count backwards, Ray. Annual tree rings, annual lake varves, annual ice layers.

What you have is rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks based on a guess by Charles Lyell in the 19th century ...

Nope.

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:17 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 269 of 357 (449159)
01-16-2008 10:21 PM

Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM

Re: why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?

Okay. Let's take one issue first:

The problems of radiometric dating are well documented. How much evidence of showing that something is wrong do you need?

One that is not full of falsehoods and misrepresentations would be a good place to start. It is easy to say that this is "well documented" but another thing altogether to see it stand up to the cold light of day.

This is not the thread for such discussion -- unless you relate it to correlations.

Radioactive carbon dating is one thread you can use for just carbon dating, and Problems with Radiometric Dating? is one you can use for other radiometric dating methods.

Note that threads are usually shut down after ~300 posts so there are not that many left here to deal with the correlations issue/s.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : links to other threads.

Edited by RAZD, : 300

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM		Creationist has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 270 of 357 (449170)
01-16-2008 10:46 PM

Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM

Redirect on off topic trends. Correlations are the topic if you please..

Sorry. Refresh my memory. Who is Ted?
You are kidding right? This is the best you have at trying to discredit Plaisted? Perhaps Plaisted could have worded it a little better, but in a nutshell, the general theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of life by naturalistic means.
If it was, then you might have a point, but it isn’t.

This is the most pervasive lie in creationism.

You see, what you posted is also wrong. That is not what evolution IS. Ted Plaisted is lying about what evolution is and you don't know enough to say otherwise.

The real deception comes from evolutionists who try to define evolution as mere change over time.

Here's a thought: when talking about a science, you use the terms as they are defined and used in the science. Anything else is dishonest.

When you get your car repaired do you tell the mechanic what to call the parts? Do you think I should use terms from astronomy to talk about biology?

And a quote from this article, emphasis is mine.
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/...al_and_stellar_evolution

quote:
On the largest scale astronomers refer to the evolution of the entire universe. In the big bang theory, the entire universe has evolved, meaning changed, in the approximately 15 billion years since its creation.

Thanks for the chuckle. (hint: astronomy ≠ biology).

HOWEVER. This thread is NOT about evolution or the lies that creationists tell about evolution, it is about correlations between dating methods, correlations that end up with the same results from different methods.

Other threads where you can talk about evolution are the Definition of Evolution, MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and Evolution and the BIG LIE

Again, that is incorrect. Either an intentional or unintentional lie? The theory of catastrophism, backed by experimental evidence that I have provided, still explains the geologic column more effectively. Of course, one has to have a different presupposition to see it, which explains why you reject it.

Actually I reject it because it has already been falsified, a small technical detail. But this too is off topic. You can take this to the Uniformitarianism thread, if you care to discuss it further.

And to actually support your assertion for "different presuppositions" I suggest you trot over to the Conclusion vs Presupposition thread and provide the evidence of this claim. Jar will be happy to assist you.

Note that it is possible to find evidence to support any theory, even that the earth is flat. The Problem is defending that theory against contradictory evidence. One piece of contradictory evidence falsifies concepts you matter how much supporting evidence you think you have.

Is it anomalous, or is it a pattern? Does it just happen every once in a while? Or does it happen more often, yet not reported? Is the evidence only accepted when it agrees with a preconceived idea?

The pattern for the age of the universe is simple: there can be no evidence of objective reality that is older than the universe. There can be evidence that is younger, but this does not contradict an old universe the way old evidence contradicts and invalidates the concept of a young universe - no matter how much evidence is younger.

The pattern is the same for the age of the earth: older evidence contradicts young earth concepts, while younger evidence does not affect old earth concepts.

The pattern is also one of consistency and this relates to the issue of these correlations: the results are consistent with each other and build up to increasingly old age.

At any rate a little research could confirm what Batten was saying.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

So he created a totally artificial and unrepresentative condition in a lab that is nothing like the ecology on the mountain tops and then induced -- according to him and no-one else - a single extra tree ring to be formed. Yawn. Now what a scientist would do would be to test those results to see if they really applied. For instance he could compare those artificial conditions to the conditions found at the top of the mountain and recorded in the tree rings to see if anything even close ever happened during the time the rings grew.

Here is another quote from "Creation Research" ... Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) (7) (it's the second abstract):

quote:
There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.

Color yellow used for emPHAsis.

So your source has another article that says while the possibility of extra rings exists, as demonstrated by Batten and Lamerts, for totally different tree\ecology systems that this in fact did not occur, based on the evidence from objective reality for the tree\ecology in question. Concept tested, concept invalidated.

In other words, the dendrochronologists were properly able to identify all anomalous rings and develop not one, not two, but three independent tree ring chronologies that correlate not only with each other but with carbon-14 ages.

Now here's the problem that you are not facing: even IF what Batten and Lammerts says was true and actually happened (rather than just existing in fantasy land), and IF what your articles on radiometric dating are saying were true, then WHY do they correlate the way they do?

Why do we get this curve comparing German oak tree ring dating with carbon-14 age:

And this curve comparing Irish oak tree ring dating with carbon-14 age:

And this curve comparing Bristlecone Pine tree ring dating with Carbon-14 age:

Yes it's the same graph - because all three were used for it. If there were problems with the data the line should be a blur or show a scattering of points. It doesn't.

Why do all three of them show the 11 year cycle for sunspot variation at the same time?

Why do the three chronologies agree within 37 years after 8,000 years of data?

Why does ONE of these correlations exist if the data is not reliable?

A correlation that is based on the assumption of long ages to begin with. All ice core "dates" are derived by calibrating the various methods to the uniformitarian theoretical system.

How does counting tree rings depend on an assumption of old age?
How does counting layers of lake varves depend on an assumption of old age?
How does counting layer of ice depend on an assumption of old age?
How does measuring actual levels of carbon-14 in wood samples, leaf samples, bug samples depend on an assumption of old age?

Do you realize that this claim of a conspiracy of "calibration" of each of the dating method " to the uniformitarian theoretical system" is falsified by the dendrochronology data? If your premise that all data was "calibrated" to a preconceived "uniformitarian theoretical system" that the dendrochronological curve above would be a straight line at 45°, and rather obviously it is a jiggly graph that departs significantly from the "uniformitarian theoretical system" that it was supposed to be "calibrated" to.

Not only that, but each of the three independently derived tree ring chronologies done by three independent groups with trees from three independent geographic locations end up with the same jiggly graph. This in spite of each group using different labs to run the carbon-14 analysis. Further, there is no way for the dendrochronologists to know the carbon-14 content of a sample, and there is no way for the lab to know the tree ring age from the samples when each are taken from one ring.

Yet the results make the same jiggly graph for each of the three independent sets of data.

Just like the tree ring dating and lake varves. And just like varves and tree rings, ice sheets can form very fast.

And when they do form fast they do not show the same characteristics that annual layers show. Can does not mean does, and to go from supposing that something can happen to a rational position that it does happen means you have to test the concept in the real world against the evidence of objective reality.

In 2005, research concluded that glacial ice should be reduced from 8 million years to as low as 43, 000 years.

Here you misrepresent both articles, the first does not say that the ice is 8 million years old and the second is not talking about the same area, it doesn't have anything to do with the layers at the core site.

With that kind of misrepresentation of the facts, I'm done dealing with your "evidence" for now.

Deal with the correlations, deal honestly with the evidence. Feel free to discuss your other misunderstandings on the linked threads to relevant topics.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : shorter off topic longer on topic

Edited by RAZD, : expanded\rewrote response, subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle again

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM		Creationist has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 276 of 357 (501695)
03-07-2009 1:44 PM

Reply to: Message 273 by CarlZienaTo
03-07-2009 9:35 AM

As the title says, it is about correlations that validate the information

Hi Christbearer11, and welcome to the fray.

Can Age Dating methods works without error. what it the some rings are caused by termites or, heat, water, animals. and how did they count it(sorry i don't know what method)?

Curiously scientists actively look for sources of error so that they can identify when and how they bias data. For instance, with tree rings, there is a strict methodology to taking measurements from several locations in each tree and comparing between trees in different locations, so that when all the data gives the same results you have a high degree of confidence in the data.

There are, for instance, two trees of approximately the same age, "Methuselah" and "Prometheus" and one ("Prometheus") was cut down in 1964 -- while still living -- to verify the tree ring count, and it has been compared with the cores taken from the other.

The way chronologies are constructed from different trees is to compare the ring patterns and match them up -- this too identifies possible errors.

There are three entirely different and independent tree ring chronologies that stretch out to over 8,000 years, and the disagreement in age between the oldest count and the youngest count for the comparable rings is 44 years -- that's about a 0.5% error.

The European oak chronology carries this out to over 10,429 years, now with even less error between it and the German oak chronology that now extends to over 12,400 years. These chronologies will continue to increase as they find and add older specimens to the data bases.

You can read more about how tree ring counting is done and errors are accounted for (plus and minus) at this website, where the information is provided by an actual scientist who does this work.

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

This is also an excellent slide show that details the methods
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

No scientist will tell you there are no errors in their methods, what they will tell you is how they have looked for sources of error and what their degree of confidence is in the result from an evaluation of all possible errors, ie with the Bristlecone Pines we have an age of the oldest ring in the (so far complete chronology) of ~8,000 years +/- 22 years.

"Rates of coral and coral reef growth have been studied by a number of investigators. ...

Please note that it is considered good form to include your sources of informations when you quote material verbatim from websites, etc, and that it is good practice to differentiate quotes from you own words.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

... and suggest net rates of growth of 0.8 to 26 mm/year. ...

Which is why linear growth is not used to measure age, instead some way of measuring actual intervals is looked for: either annual growth patterns (that exist in corals as well as trees) or records of historic events (volcanic eruptions, etc) that are embedded in the growths.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 273 by CarlZienaTo, posted 03-07-2009 9:35 AM		CarlZienaTo has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 328 of 357 (503057)
03-15-2009 7:05 PM

Reply to: Message 280 by anglagard
03-13-2009 3:17 AM

Sorry to hear

about your loss anglagard,

Am a bit busy to properly participate beyond this basic criticism, I leave the patience and through explanation to RAZD. However, if you are still around after my mom's estate gets fully probated, I'm sure we will meet again.

I thought it was difficult dealing with my parents house burning up, but they have survived, have relocated to temporary housing and now are looking forward to rebuilding one of their design, and the only losses were material items, the stuff you are dealing with I guess.

Condolences, no matter how inconsequential words are.

RAZD/paul

This message is a reply to:
	Message 280 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 3:17 AM		anglagard has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 329 of 357 (503065)
03-15-2009 8:08 PM

Reply to: Message 277 by Daniel4140
03-12-2009 9:30 PM

Re: Correlations

Hi Daniel4140, and welcome to the fray. Seems you have contributed to a burst on this thread while I was away, so I am just picking up some bits and pieces at this point. Note that threads are often closed after 300 posts, so don't be surprised if there is notification that this will occur.

I simply don't believe most of the "data" being put out by laboratories.

You are free to believe whatever you like, however you should also be aware that your opinion has absolutely no effect on reality. What you are dealing with is cognitive dissonance - confronting evidence that contradicts pet beliefs - with the first level of response being denial of the contradictory evidence.

As shalamabobbi has already pointed out, it doesn't take much effort to count simple layers to arrive at ages for the earth that are contradictory to a young earth model.

The only data I feel compelled to believe is data obtained in an investigation where qualified creationists are "in" on the investigation details.

This is confirmation bias - only looking at information that you agree with.

The so called "correlations" are little more than propaganda. Also the samples submitted to the laboratories undergo a sort of Natural Selection. If the investigator "believes" a sample falls in a certain age range, and it doesn't, then some exucse -- contamination, etc., geological activity, or other ad hoc assumption is made to dismiss the date.

Yes the old "all scientists are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to hide the truth" rationalization that is the second response to cognitive dissonance.

Do you really believe all science is make believe fabrications?

If evolutionists want to convince creationists of an old earth using legitimate means, then since they are in control of the publications, they are obligated to PROVE that there is no bias. When they can demonstrate that they are not guilty of propaganda, then we might consider their claims.

Sorry, the shoe is on the other foot. Scientists work to a very strict protocol of peer review, and the only thing you need to do is present a study based on sound scientific process, show evidence for your conclusions, and demonstrate that your conclusions follow from the evidence. Not being admitted for publication does not mean bias against an idea but bias against unscientific work.

If you want to show that the scientific consensus is incorrect then you have to do the work and the onus on proof is at your feet. This is the way science works in all fields.

I would certainly not believe ANY claim of any evidence on a board like this until it was thoroughly vetted to an unambiguous conclusion of the actual evidence.

Which, curiously, is why references are provided. You are free to pursue the actual evidence in the articles mentioned, and if that is not sufficient you can contact the authors, tell them they are liars, and then ask please can you see their evidence.

Notice that you have just admitted making a judgement before seeing the evidence.

Message 279

The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work.

Then you haven't talked to a dendrochronologist. Try Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, he was quite friendly when I emailed him about some questions I had.

For the record the oldest trees on record:

Fachbereich Biologie : Universität Hamburg

quote:
The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6).

Notice that they are talking about two trees, "Methuselah" and specimen WPM-114 which has since been named "Prometheus" so you are short by several hundred years and by one tree.

The "Methusulah" specimen was sampled (by boring) in 1957, the estimated germination date is 2,832 years BCE, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,841 years (in 2009 ... and counting).

See Methuselah - Wikipedia(tree) for further information.

The "Prometheus" specimen was was 4,844 years old when it was cut down in 1964. This is a minimum as the core of the tree had eroded away, and this gives a latest germination date of 2,880 BCE. By this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,889 years (in 2009 ... and counting).

See Prometheus - Wikipedia(tree) for further information. Notice that the stump still exists (albeit weathered) so it should be possible to take many detailed photographs and do the counting yourself. It's only at the top of a mountain in the sierra nevadas.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood?

Always good for a chuckle. Can you show me where that 12C "spike" from vented subterranean waters is on this chart?

Notice that this data is only from dendrochronology at this point. There is no break in the data. There is no spike. We can also look at the same kind of calibration curve from Lake Suigetsu:

Just a moment...

quote:
Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

Notice that the green line is the same as in the previous chart, while this one extends the data out to 45,000 years BP (which means before 1950 - don't ask me why, it's just the convention used for 14C dating).

Can you explain the correlation between tree rings, 14C and lake varve layers?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Testing the Theories

Usually they don't allow you to just quote from other websites without offering your own interpretation that shows you understand what they are talking about, but you are new.

Curiously, I saw no reference to Lake Suiketsu, which is a little unique in the way the varves are formed there: the layers alternate between diatom shells and clay, the shell are deposited during the summer and early fall months when there is an annual diatom "bloom and bust" growth pattern, while the clay is deposited year round, but only during the winter and early spring months does it accumulate enough to cover the diatom shells.

Interestingly, bits of trees and insects also get deposited in the depths of the lake and covered by these layers, so we can correlate the counted annual layers with the 14C/12C ratios and ages.

Also, the ice flow models for GRIP and other cores are flawed. Here the problem is the model assumptions and the interpretation of the results.

Now we get AiG. In the meantime you have forgotten the critical element here - correlations.

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 this bit of data:

Message 243
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.

Draw a vertical line through 11,000 years and compare that to where the kink in the line occurs. A major change in climate at the same time that the rate of accumulation of sediment in the lake occurred.

Why do the tree ring ages correlate with the 14C data?

Why do the lake Suigetsu varves and 14C data correlate with sediment depth?

Why do the 14C data from the trees correlate with the 14C data from the lake varves for the same ages?

Why do all three correlate with climate patterns for ring width and amount of 14C? Why do the ice core layers correlate with the climate for the periods covered by the tree rings and 14C?

Why does the major climate change in the ice core data correlate with the major climate change in the sedimentation rate in the lake?

As noted by shalamabobbi in Message 281 you need to explain the correlations. Poking holes in each individual dating method does not explain how the end up with the same dates.

Message 284

tag writes:

Also, the "dead wood" overlaps the living trees. This is done by comparing the thickness of the rings which form a very unique "bar code". This is due to annual variations in moisture and growing conditions.

And in the case of the bristlecone pines we have dead wood that overlaps and extends the data to over 7000 growth rings lying on the ground in the same groves as the living trees.

Gallery (2)

quote:
These trees located in Methuselah Grove are on a steep slope and in an area where trees reach 3000 - 4000 years of age. Very old trees are typically squat and gnarled, with many dead branches and large areas of exposed wood. In this grove, scientists have found several pieces of deadwood lying on the ground for more than 7000 years!

How do you explain the overlaps in data?

Probably enough for now.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM		Daniel4140 has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 330 of 357 (503076)
03-15-2009 8:58 PM

Reply to: Message 322 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:11 PM

Re: Use evidence I can agree with - in other words disregard reality?

Hey Daniel4140, you won't get many warnings here when you are advised to avoid specific offtopic issues

The raw data for the chronology comes from the BIBLE. ...

And if the age of the earth were truly young you would not need a book to tell you so.

It is easy to find evidence of younger parts of an old earth, but it is impossible (be definition) to find older parts in a young earth, so how can you explain the older parts?

Consider this little piece of logic: if the age of the earth is young then you should be able to demonstrate:

exactly how old the earth is. Current YEC "ages" vary by over 200%.
exactly why each annual counting method used in this thread is in error
why that erroneous result exactly matches the erroneous results in the other annual counting measures
why all those erroneous results exactly matches the radiometric ages
why all those radiometric methods produce erroneous results
why all those erroneous radiometric results exactly match all the other radiometric ages and the annual counting ages
demonstrate why the earth cannot be older than "X" days

I'm still waiting, after three versions of this thread running to over 933 total posts so far, and I have not yet seen one reason for one correlation. Not one.

So put down the book and the bluster and get to work. The data is there, and if it isn't in the first page cited it should be listed as a secondary link.

Focus on the concept of correlations. For reference I repeat this chart from Message 329:

Now pay attention, there are three things correlated here: lake varve layers (alternating diatoms and clay), sedimentation rate (changing significantly at the time of the last significant change in climate), and the carbon-14 age of the layers.

Note that the C-14 age is a result of mathematical conversion from the actual levels of 14C and 12C in the samples and that to explain this match you have to explain how an exponential function such as radioactive decay could match this actual annual age pattern so precisely by some other mechanism.

Exponential curves look like this:

While the varve layers are linear rates with age: How did that "kink" occur in the 14C age at just the right place to match the varve data

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 322 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:11 PM		Daniel4140 has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 1/0