Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 335 of 357 (503614)
03-20-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by JonF
03-15-2009 4:50 PM


Got some data.... need more
quote:
ETA; Whoops, the bristlecone measurements aren't labeled as such in the file. THey are at North America Paleo Tree Ring Measurements.
You might want to read Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology
Good link. So there is some data. I looked at four matches from ca. 1700 B.C., and did a few tests. First for the 'matching' sections I subtracted the ring withs to produce a difference table. I then found the average difference, and then the mean. Here is the start of the data for MWK001 and MWK002 cross match.
-1754 17.69%
-1753 Median 13 Avdif 2.3
-1752 MWK001 MWK002
-1751
-1750 15 21
-1749 13 17
-1748 14 22
-1747 12 18
-1746 16 27
-1745 16 21
-1744 14 13
-1743 15 15
-1742 20 22
This just a back of the envelope calculation. I did the same for a match in the last 500 years with similar results. Here is part of the data:
1616 26.25%
1617 Median 16
1618 Avdif 4.2
1619 MWK832
1620 18
1621 11
1622 0
1623 22
1624 13
1625 21
1626 4
Then I took this same section and deliberately missmatched it against another section. Here is the result:
Random Control Test #1
18 8.98 49.89%
22 3
14 18
14 5
19 1
11 1
22 3
2 27
The average deviation from the median ring width goes up to 49% of the median. I then performed the same tests on linkages between 4000 B.C. and 2000 B.C.
Test 1: 61%
Test 2: 79%
Test 3: 99%
Test 4: 47%
Test 5: 51%
Test 6: 49%
Test 7: 48%
Test 8: 45%
This was good enough to convince me that the whole statistical method of cross matching is highly subjective. The critical matches before 2000 B.C. seem to be no more than white noise.
I have also determined that it would be fruitless to continue the investigation of the linked file for the following reasons, which can only be remedied with more data, i.e. the critical data that has so far been withheld, just as I before alleged. Here is a punch list:
1. A file listing the radiocarbon dates of each 10 year ring segment. I understand that there are 500 such datings. Further, that the data show the original error ranges in the 14C dates for each 10 year segment.
2. A file with a series of control tests, in which random segments are matched as closely as possible from wood known to be of non-matching dates, with all the same statistical tests, so that the validity of the other "matches" and their statistical results can be fairly jugdged against the control.
3. A file containing the record of all the places that the dendrochronologiests inferred a missing ring. I undestand that this is the case about 5% of the time.
4. I have "heard" that radiocarbon dates on the inner rings of a sample date earlier than the outer rings of the same sample. I need to know the diffusion rates for 14C and 12C through the tree over time. If such dates differ, then we need the 14C data for various points in 4000 year old living trees as well.
Please link the data, or cite its source in the published literature. I will be happy if either proves to be geniune to whatever extent for the long White Mountains Bristecone (8700 year) Chronology.
I have read the AIG Woodmorerappe article. I disagree with John's quick rubber stamping of the statistical results on the basis that I have been unable to find a control test on a non-matching sample, plus have read allegations of others who have done just that with non-confirming results.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 4:50 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 5:20 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 337 of 357 (503619)
03-20-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by JonF
03-20-2009 5:20 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Those back of the envelope calculations are perfectly valid to show that something is wrong with the tree ring conclusions. And without the control experiements I mentioned tree ring "science" isn't science at all. It's no better than water divination. This is perfectly on topic. I'm saying there is no valid statistical correlation if you put it up to a control. So where is your control? Where is the data to support it?
Until then, the whole idea that tree ring dates correlate to an evolutionary timeframe is just propaganda. The following PPT explains why "extending" bristecone pine beyond the time of the flood is not science:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/...s/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt
Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 5:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:49 PM Daniel4140 has not replied
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:58 PM Daniel4140 has replied
 Message 349 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:45 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 338 of 357 (503621)
03-20-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
quote:
1. A file listing the radiocarbon dates of each 10 year ring segment. I understand that there are 500 such datings. Further, that the data show the original error ranges in the 14C dates for each 10 year segment.
2. A file with a series of control tests, in which random segments are matched as closely as possible from wood known to be of non-matching dates, with all the same statistical tests, so that the validity of the other "matches" and their statistical results can be fairly jugdged against the control.
3. A file containing the record of all the places that the dendrochronologiests inferred a missing ring. I undestand that this is the case about 5% of the time.
4. I have "heard" that radiocarbon dates on the inner rings of a sample date earlier than the outer rings of the same sample. I need to know the diffusion rates for 14C and 12C through the tree over time. If such dates differ, then we need the 14C data for various points in 4000 year old living trees as well.
Please link the data, or cite its source in the published literature. I will be happy if either proves to be geniune to whatever extent for the long White Mountains Bristecone (8700 year) Chronology.
14C doesn't "correlate" if the tree ring matches are random and invalid.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:15 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 339 of 357 (503623)
03-20-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
06-11-2006 7:15 PM


Your Data is Bogus
8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/...s/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt
37,930 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
... corroborated to 45,000 years by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
quote:
Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm), which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe that time can be measured. The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, a classic varve region, contains billions of flattened, paper-thin, fossilized fish; thousands were buried and fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish. [See Figure 7 on page 11.] Obviously, burial was sudden. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake for years, would decay or disintegrate long before enough varves could bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, deteriorate, and then sink.) Most fish fossilized in varves show exquisite detail and are pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as if they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.
Also, varves are too uniform, show almost no erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakeswhere most lake deposits occur. Liquefaction best explains these varves.
... from Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
- recently updated to 250,000 years
See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/...ntations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
- recently updated to 650,000 years
See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/...ntations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt
567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 7:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM Daniel4140 has replied
 Message 342 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 344 of 357 (503632)
03-20-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:15 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
First off "correlations" are not exact matches. If you look at the ring data, "correlated" rings have wildly different widths. Second, there is so much white noise in the data that matches are possible at multiple points. That's the reason that tests need to be done with random control data.
I am writing a paper on this, so you need to give some good answers.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 345 of 357 (503633)
03-20-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Percy
03-20-2009 7:58 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Percy,
I don't care what you think about that PPT presentation. The cited paper's findings are relevant to the validity of Ferguson's work.
I saved that paper. Thank's for the link.
Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 03-21-2009 2:54 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 346 of 357 (503634)
03-20-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the intrpertation of large ages is invalid since the 14C was not in equilibrium and still, to this very day, has not reached equilibrium. The non-equilibrium condition means that the spread of past dates 0 to 60,0000 B.P. collapses to only 4400 years.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 10:30 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 347 of 357 (503635)
03-20-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by shalamabobbi
03-20-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Your Data is Bogus
On divine intervention, see my article: The Definition of Science and Divine Intervention

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2009 8:44 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 350 of 357 (503638)
03-20-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
quote:
Some Recent Developments in ‘Age Determination’
I now focus on those dating methods which are claimed to give dates from several thousand years to about 1 million years, as these are cited in the National Geographic article, particularly with reference to presumed human evolution.
Let us consider attempts to check carbon-14 dates with other supposed indicators of time. It was recently claimed that a count of presumably annual varves at Lake Suigetsu, Japan, agreed with 14C dates to at least 38,000 years before the present.6 Conventional uniformitarian thinking would maintain that this agreement is powerful evidence for the accuracy of the dates: After all, we have agreement between two completely independent dating systems. Furthermore, one of the dating methods does not even require radioactive decay.
Well, not so fast, as it recently has turned out. As dates from other ‘time indicators’ became available, the majority of them strongly disagreed with 14C. These new dates typically gave values as much as 10,000 years older than carbon-14 (within the 14C range of dates spanning 30,000 to 40,000 years before the present).7 Note that these dates are published, and so are presumably the ‘good’ dates. So what is to be done with the data from Lake Suigetsu? As always, whenever an age determination falls out of favor, a rationalization must be invoked to justify its rejection. As documented in my earlier-cited works,3 there exists an elaborate Orwellian language for routinely dealing with unwanted dates. In the case of Lake Suigetsu, a set of ‘missing varves’ was invoked.8
But what if the Lake Suigetsu data remains favored, for one reason or another? Never fear. Other rationalizations are available, just in case, for the data that disagrees with the Lake Suigetsu 14C chronology. These include incorrect initial- 230Th correction for the 230Th dates, unsupported gain or loss of uranium or thorium, a variety of possible errors in the correlation of deep-sea cores, etc.9
source: National Geographic Plays the Dating Game | Answers in Genesis

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:56 PM Daniel4140 has replied
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2009 9:26 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5473 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 352 of 357 (503644)
03-20-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by JonF
03-20-2009 8:56 PM


They don't correlate
You are the one misrepresenting the data. Why didn't you point out this discrepancy in the first place? Why did I have to dig it up?
And if you don't cite all the discrepant data, then why should I assume that those researchers didn't dump a lot of discrepant dates before they got some that agreed with their theory? Your "science" is just divination.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:56 PM JonF has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024