|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,575 Year: 2,832/9,624 Month: 677/1,588 Week: 83/229 Day: 55/28 Hour: 1/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: 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 #118 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024