Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 61 of 1498 (653869)
02-25-2012 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coyote
02-25-2012 12:33 AM


Re True Believers
I have previously been a member of a YEC believing church but have been able to follow the evidence and change. However I think I can understand the problems for some believers. When you have invested a life-time of effort and means into the church, the idea that you might have been wrong all along could be too painful to contemplate, so you shut your ears to any disturbing evidence. You just take the line of some of the Creation websites and say any evidence that contradicts the Bible is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 02-25-2012 12:33 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM Pollux has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 1498 (653881)
02-25-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pollux
02-24-2012 10:53 PM


Re: More correlations
Hi again Pollux
The Cariaco report is at Not Found and includes graphs. It seems to be anchored by C14 dating and ice-core comparison.
The Wiki article on Carbon Dating mentions the plateau at 10,000 -11,000years. I did not record where I saw the referral to the 750-450 BC plateau, but it seems to show on your dendrochronology graph. The Cariaco article also mentions other plateaus in the record.
Thanks, I'll read through that this weekend and see what I can extract to add to the thread.
I have been looking at the reports of ice and deep-sea cores. There is an immense amount of information in them which would be very difficult to squeeze in to a YEC paradigm, including many more correlations.
The correlations with climate change are of interest to me for several reasons, one of which is the persistent YEC claim that climate could\would be different before the flood, so being able to show long term climate trends without extreme alterations would be evidence against this argument.
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 57 by Pollux, posted 02-24-2012 10:53 PM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 6:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 1498 (653978)
02-25-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Pollux
02-25-2012 1:31 AM


Re: Re True Believers? I think not.
the idea that you might have been wrong all along could be too painful to contemplate, so you shut your ears to any disturbing evidence.
I think you've hit on part of the problem, but I think the reality is a bit more fundamental. I don't think YEC believers, in general, know much science to begin with. Some YECs even wear their ignorance as some kind of Christian merit badge. It is pretty easy to dismiss scientific examples, when you don't understand the nature of the evidence for them, particularly when the alternative is the destruction of your potentially eternal soul.
Quite frankly, the fundamental reason, in my opinion, is a failure of the very faith that YECs claim to have. In essence, YECs seem to believe that if a single part of the Bible cannot to be taken literally in the most extreme sense, that even their salvation through Jesus Christ cannot be correct. Yet no one would ever read any other work in quite the way a YEC reads the Bible.
I've heard pastors suggest that the Bible is the ultimate science text, and usually those pastors cite some passage of the Bible that can be stretched to match some scientific truth. Well I read the Bible cover to cover annually, and I've never seen anything that would allow me to determine the equations of motion for a Foucault pendulum using Lagrangian mechanics, so I generally simply ignore such claims.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 1:31 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 7:11 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 64 of 1498 (653981)
02-25-2012 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
02-25-2012 7:40 AM


Re: More correlations
Hi RAZD.
You may be interested in a report of a sea-core off Portugal which compares pollen records from varying advance and retreat of forests etc with temperature signals and comparison with ice-cores 185,000 to 345,000 years ago. It is at http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/...e/academic/k.roucoux/EPSL.pdf
Edited by Pollux, : typo correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 7:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 8:13 PM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 65 of 1498 (653985)
02-25-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
02-25-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Re True Believers? I think not.
Hi NoNukes,
I have seen a range of YECs. Some would have trouble understanding the science. Some like some medicos I know are perfectly able to understand but reject and/or ignore it. Some know the science but their faith trumps it.
I have always, or at least for a long time, believed that Truth can stand scrutiny, and it doesn't hold up it is not Truth.
But this is probably getting off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 7:52 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 1498 (653990)
02-25-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Pollux
02-25-2012 7:11 PM


Cognitive Dissonance not the topic
Hi Pollux and NoNukes,
I have seen a range of YECs. Some would have trouble understanding the science. Some like some medicos I know are perfectly able to understand but reject and/or ignore it. Some know the science but their faith trumps it.
This would make a great topic for a new thread. I would start with a discussion of
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance - (Wikipedia, 2010)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing them.[2] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision". The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
This is a powerful psychological block to accepting any information that contradicts firmly held beliefs.
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 65 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 7:11 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 1498 (653991)
02-25-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Pollux
02-25-2012 6:20 PM


Re: More correlations
Hi Pollux
You may be interested in a report of a sea-core off Portugal which compares pollen records from varying advance and retreat of forests etc with temperature signals and comparison with ice-cores 185,000 to 345,000 years ago. It is at School of Geography: 404
I'll look into that tomorrow (my study day this week) as well as your other reference. One thing I will be looking for is a good start to the core and well defined annual layers.
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 64 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 6:20 PM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 68 of 1498 (653995)
02-25-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
02-25-2012 8:13 PM


Re: More correlations
Hi RAZD,
You will not find well defined annual layers at 145,000 years.
I am only a beginner in this but what I have seen so far is annual layers can be counted in ice cores for a few tens of thousands of years, confirmed by C14 and other markers such as O18. In deeper layers O18 and Be10 changes can be seen in Milankovitch cycles and allow estimation of greater ages. The ice cores can be compared with similar O18 changes in sea-cores and speleothems which can yield higher RM dates. Amounts of CO2 included in the ice cores also varies with other temperature markers.
I read that the Vostok core was dated by 5 different methods with agreement within a few thousand years, but the methods were not detailed.
If someone else can give more details that would be good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 7:41 AM Pollux has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 1498 (654031)
02-26-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Pollux
02-25-2012 9:33 PM


Re: More correlations
Hi Pollux,
I am only a beginner in this but what I have seen so far is annual layers can be counted in ice cores for a few tens of thousands of years, confirmed by C14 and other markers such as O18. In deeper layers O18 and Be10 changes can be seen in Milankovitch cycles and allow estimation of greater ages. The ice cores can be compared with similar O18 changes in sea-cores and speleothems which can yield higher RM dates. Amounts of CO2 included in the ice cores also varies with other temperature markers.
I read that the Vostok core was dated by 5 different methods with agreement within a few thousand years, but the methods were not detailed.
If someone else can give more details that would be good.
I'll have to go back and recheck the ice core information, thanks.
A similar problem occurs with the Lake Suigetsu layers, and that is why I cut off the annual layers where I do, even though the core data extends much further.
One thing we can say about those extended cores is that they do not show a discontinuity in that data, a disruption of the process of layer formation, the introduction of completely foreign objects into the layer process (such as piles of dinosaur fossils).
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 68 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 9:33 PM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2012 3:46 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 71 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2012 4:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 02-26-2012 4:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 70 of 1498 (654055)
02-26-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-26-2012 7:41 AM


Re: More correlations
Hi RAZD,
The Greenland Ice core Counting Chronology 2005 is layer counted and unified for the DYE3, GRIP, and NGRIP cores and goes back 62,000 years.
From carlsberggroup.com :
Researchers studied 5,700 metres of ice from three Greenland cores.
Annual layer counting involved 175,000 isotope measurements and more than a million measurements of chemical impurities in layers of ice less than 1 cm thick.
It makes you tired just reading about that much work, but shows the effort that is put into making the count as accurate as possible.
A significant absence is evidence of the massive amount of volcanic activity that most Flood models involve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 7:41 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 10:06 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 71 of 1498 (654059)
02-26-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-26-2012 7:41 AM


Re: More correlations
The Niels Bohr Institute Ice and Climate section has a wealth of info under the Research part of Centre for Ice and Climate — University of Copenhagen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 7:41 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 72 of 1498 (654060)
02-26-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-26-2012 7:41 AM


Re: More correlations
A couple of items that are at least tangential to this thread and topic:
A paper by Burke and Robinson in the 3 Feb 2012 issue of Science has a plausible-sounding explanation for the "wiggle" in carbon-14 dating curves around 16,000 years ago - the Southern Ocean gave up a huge "burp" of C-14 depleted water that had been in the deeps there for a long while.
Abstract:
Changes in the upwelling and degassing of carbon from the Southern Ocean form one of the leading hypotheses for the cause of glacial-interglacial changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We present a 25,000-year-long Southern Ocean radiocarbon record reconstructed from deep-sea corals, which shows radiocarbon-depleted waters during the glacial period and through the early deglaciation. This depletion and associated deep stratification disappeared by ~14.6 ka (thousand years ago), consistent with the transfer of carbon from the deep ocean to the surface ocean and atmosphere via a Southern Ocean ventilation event. Given this evidence for carbon exchange in the Southern Ocean, we show that existing deep-ocean radiocarbon records from the glacial period are sufficiently depleted to explain the ~190 per mil drop in atmospheric radiocarbon between ~17 and 14.5 ka.
And, a news piece in Nature on 16 Feb. tells of a recent paper in Physical Review Letters that describes a optical-spectroscopy way to measure carbon 14 at much lower levels than current methods can. This may well allow carbon dating further into the past, though folks will have to be even more vigilant about contamination than they are now. And the instrumentation is potentially far cheaper than accelerator mass spectrometers.
Edited by Coragyps, : tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 7:41 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2012 9:21 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 76 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2012 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2012 11:06 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 1498 (654100)
02-26-2012 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
02-26-2012 4:13 PM


Re: More correlations
And, a news piece in Nature on 16 Feb. tells of a recent paper in Physical Review Letters that describes a optical-spectroscopy way to measure carbon 14 at much lower levels than current methods can. This may well allow carbon dating further into the past, though folks will have to be even more vigilant about contamination than they are now. And the instrumentation is potentially far cheaper than accelerator mass spectrometers.
I've been waiting for some breakthroughs in this field. Current AMS dates are $595 at Beta Analytic. If we could get some significant cost drop we could do a lot more samples. Additional accuracy would be a nice side benefit as well.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 02-26-2012 4:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 9:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 1498 (654106)
02-26-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Coyote
02-26-2012 9:21 PM


More samples, improved correlations
Hi Coyote,
I've been waiting for some breakthroughs in this field. Current AMS dates are $595 at Beta Analytic. If we could get some significant cost drop we could do a lot more samples. Additional accuracy would be a nice side benefit as well.
Indeed, think what doing more samples on the tree rings and other samples from annual varves etc would do for the calibration curves as well.

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 73 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2012 9:21 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 1498 (654107)
02-26-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Pollux
02-26-2012 3:46 PM


Re: More correlations
Hi again Pollux,
I've read through the Hughen et al paper on the Cariaco Basin varves, and it looks like it helps confirm the other data as suggested. I do still need to check with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core data to see how it is anchored and correlated.
I would like to use this as another example with the other annual systems if I can, but if not then it certainly serves as a further correlation that needs to be explained -- ie how come does this set of data only match the other curves if the dates are correct, and why does it match the other data so completely if the dates are not correct.
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 70 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2012 3:46 PM Pollux has seen this message but 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