|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I suppose I should be more specific than I was, sorry about that. In a more tropical environment, I question whether the summer/winter cycles would exist the same way, and thus whether multiple rings could be put down in a single year. Is that supposed to be more specific? You aren't coming anywhere near suggesting how this might work. You want to postulate multiple growing seasons in a year, but you are leaving it up to my imagination to figure out how that could have happened. This is your scenario. You made up the explanation, so you should be telling us how it works.
NoNukes writes:
Let's be for real. No matter what review had been done in the past, you would ask for more double-checking. You had no idea who checked what when you posted this.Jzyehoshua writes: Really, I would like to check it myself. If that is your position, then perhaps you should do the checking before you assert that the scientists are wrong. The funny part of this is that we are just messing around with dating methods that are good for 50k years or so. The earth is 4.5+ billion years old.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi once again Jzyehoshua,
Thanks for pointing out I was getting off-topic. I should've read more carefully to recognize that was the main topic and not just the methods themselves, my apologies. The topic issue is the correlations on dates derived by different means, with an emphasis on methods that involve annual counting systems.
Concerning this point in particular though, first of all, do they really all agree with one another apart from indicating a minimum age to life on earth? ... Yes. Perhaps you should read the different posts to see.
... And if not, then that just suggests scientists are trying to find any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth. ... The scientists involved have done the work independently of one another, what I have done here is assemble them in one place to show the correlations. Scientists are not at all worried about finding "any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth" as that has been done for some time to the satisfaction of science: the age of the earth is over 4.55 billion years according to the latest available information. It is just creationists that seem to have a problem recognizing this fact. This is a small minority of people in the world.
Brent Dalrymple points out a number of previous attempts that got debunked in "The Age of the Earth", the section on early attempts at dating the earth. They consistently failed because of (A) a belief in constancy per Uniformitarianism, and (B) inadequate consideration of all possible factors. Examples include De Maillet's theory on sea decline, Kelvin's theory on cooling of the earth and sun, and George Darwin's moon origin theory. It's online here starting at page 25: ... Gosh, science refining the conclusions on the age of the earth based on new information ... what a shocking development ... or not. We still end up with a result of a minimum age of the earth of 4.55 billion years. Feel free to contact Brent Dalrymple to see if he agrees.
Secondly, everything basically falls into 3 categories that I can see: (1) Radiometric isotope dating (Message 11).(2) Dendrochronology (Message 2, 3, 4, 5) and coral dating (Message 10). (3) Depositional rates (Message 6, 7, 8, 9). Why all 3 would be thrown off though is pretty easy to explain via a global Flood and previous canopy surrounding the earth, both of which are well-evidenced in the fossil record. Fantasy on top of fantasy. Making up stories that demonstrate to you that "all 3 would be thrown off" curiously does not explain the correlations. Four dendrochonologies from different global locations, different ecologies and different species correlate within 0.5%. The dendrochronologies also correlate for the 14C/12C ratios at the same ages. The dendrochronologies also correlate with the Lake Suigetsu varves and with the 14C/12C ratios of organic items deposited in the varves for the same ages as the tree rings.. The 14C/12C ratios follow the standard exponential decay curve for at least 35,000 years. Message 5. The climate effects on the 14C/12C ratios also correlate with the climates shown in the tree rings. Why do these all correlate to the same ages?
We know ancient life was simultaneously extinguished although scientists dislike considering a Flood was involved, and prefer to hypothesize about meteor impacts or underwater volcanoes. They assume multiple huge catastrophes like the Permian-Triassic extinction event, Devonian extinction, Ordovician-Silurian extinction, Cretaceous extinction event, Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and Pre-Cambrian mass extinction event. Events in the distant past, well beyond the ages of the tree rings, Lake Suigetsu varves, and ice cores, with the most recent occurring ~65 million years ago. This is irrelevant to this topic because they occurred before the ages being discussed ... unless you accept their age?
We also know earth's atmosphere was once much thicker than it is today, and that oxygen levels were 50% higher resulting in huge insects in earth's past. Again, older than the times discussed in this topic. We also know that the ecology was different then, but that is still irrelevant to the issue of correlations of the dating methodologies discussed in this thread.
A Pre-Flood Canopy would result in higher oxygen levels and initial daughter isotope levels, affecting both radiometric dating and dendrochronology. The Flood itself should affect radiometric dating and depositional rates especially. As I pointed out in Message 93, there appears evidence that the sediment layers were not laid down over long periods but rather by a massive Flood at one point (Point 3, Message 6, 7, 8, 9). And such a Flood would alter isotope decay rates as well, especially if volcanic activity was involved. It would fossilize pretty much everything at once and lay down multiple layers of sediment in a short amount of time - layers scientists today assume were laid down gradually over long periods. In summary, I think the combined explanation of a Pre-Flood Canopy coupled with a global Flood serves to explain why all 3 dating methods would be substantially altered to account for a recent date to life on earth. Again, made up fantasy does not refute evidence, and you have not explained how the mechanisms involved create the correlations seen in the data.
... The Flood itself should affect radiometric dating ... Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes used, when no variation with depth is observed today. How does this cause the correlations seen? Show experimental results.
... and depositional rates especially. ... Agreed -- it should wipe out the patterns observed not create them. This is evidence that the flood did NOT occur.
... As I pointed out in Message 93, there appears evidence that the sediment layers were not laid down over long periods but rather by a massive Flood at one point (Point 3, Message 6, 7, 8, 9). ... Floods do not lay down multiple layers of fine silt mixed with clay alternating with layers of diatom shells. You can test this: get some diatomaceous earth from a gardening store, mix it with fine clay from a pottery store, and then mix it with a lot of water so that the diatoms and clay are suspended and distributed throughout, and then try various ways to shake and rattle the container to alter the deposition of the diatoms and clay particles. Have fun.
... And such a Flood would alter isotope decay rates as well, ... Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, when no variation with depth is observed today. How does this cause the correlations seen? Show experimental results.
... especially if volcanic activity was involved. ... Why? How much? Be specific how volcanic activity change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes involved, when no significant variation is observed today. How does this cause the correlations seen? Show experimental results.
... It would fossilize pretty much everything at once and lay down multiple layers of sediment in a short amount of time - layers scientists today assume were laid down gradually over long periods. Another creationist fantasy unsupported by evidence. If this hypothesis had any validity we should see tons of fossils forming at the bottom of the oceans -- all they need to do is sink and bingo: fossils. Curiously this does not occur. Sadly it also is not relevant to the issue of correlations of the age measuring methods.
In summary, I think the combined explanation of a Pre-Flood Canopy coupled with a global Flood serves to explain why all 3 dating methods would be substantially altered to account for a recent date to life on earth. And sadly, for you, you have failed entirely to show how the correlations occur, why they get the same ages, not just a jumble of different old ages. All you have done is thrown a lot of mud, and unfortunately (for you), none of it is sticking: the correlations still show that the earth is old. In summary, creationist fantasy, claiming miracles due to a flood they cannot show occurred, is not an explanation for the correlations observed in the data. And we've only begun to discuss the methods used to measure ages well beyond any young earth fantasy. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
The funny part of this is that we are just messing around with dating methods that are good for 50k years or so. The earth is 4.5+ billion years old. Which raises another question - does the Bible say the earth itself is young? Genesis 1:2 says the earth was empty and void. The solar day apparently didn't exist until the 4th day when the sun and planets were created so any length of time could've passed earlier. There's a reason I'm not debating the age of the earth but the age of life's beginning on earth specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I realize there have been a lot of responses to your posts, but you haven't yet responded to my post, Message 120, which contains evidence that:
1) your contention regarding the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region is incorrect, leading to I would appreciate a reply if time permits.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua,
(1) I just explained in Message 124 how all your points fall into 3 categories ... Which, as I explain in Message 137 does not address the correlations, it's just made up fantasy.
(2) Concerning the Dendrochronologies, the oldest tree we have dates under 5,000 years. And that's assuming rings were dated correctly at a year apiece. The cross-dating becomes speculative as it depends on their correct analysis of a pattern existing. According to your Message 2: Obviously if they just pick and choose 2 similar rings for two 4,000 year old trees they can claim trees of similar ages show a 7,000 or 8,000 year history, even if the trees grew at approximately the same time. Their analysis needs to be double-checked to show the pattern was indeed reliable. And seeing as the four dendrochronologies correlate within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years it should be obvious that your objections are just your simplistic imagination and not apply to the actual science and work involved. As noted in Message 2:
quote: If you disagree you can contact Henri D. Grissino-Mayer at the University of Tennessee Department of Geography. I found him quite approachable. I'm sure that he would be impressed by your grasp of his profession. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Which raises another question - does the Bible say the earth itself is young? Genesis 1:2 says the earth was empty and void. The solar day apparently didn't exist until the 4th day when the sun and planets were created so any length of time could've passed earlier. There's a reason I'm not debating the age of the earth but the age of life's beginning on earth specifically. You'd have to ask a Bible literalist about that. I don't believe that the earth as a planet predates the existence of the sun. Perhaps the earth being void and without form is a poetic expression describing the disk of gas and supernova dust from which the solar system was formed.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua, you seem to be missing the point here
You still haven't addressed my Message 124 which did provide the mechanism you and others wanted. I still see no reply to my explanation of why correlations would exist. Sadly, for you, Message 124 does not show HOW the correlations occur, it is just an ad hoc pile of fantasy concepts, with no evidence, and no demonstration of any direct effect. You may just as well say god-did-it. You may think this explains things to your satisfaction, but it is completely inadequate here. This is a science thread. You have not explained HOW the correlations happen to match to such degree of accuracy, and you have not produced any evidence of the changes you think occurred.
HOW does the " mechanism you and others wanted" actually work? HOW does it change decay rates? HOW does it change tree rings, lake varves and the ratio of 14C/12C? You can't just wave your hands and invent fantasy and expect us to applaud: what is the scientifically testable mechanism and what is the evidence that supports it?
I just explained that in my previous post. No you haven't, all you have done is make silly statements that enable your denial of the facts, statements that are contradicted in the posts you refer to. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua,
My point is, ideally I'd just like to see the evidence for myself to assure myself that the trees were accurately matched. So that's where things really stand. Barring that I'd like to see some good evidence they were matched correctly. Contact a dendrochronologist and tell them what you think.
... Barring that I'd like to see some good evidence they were matched correctly. Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for climate changes and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years. Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years. The curve of 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age generally matches the normal exponential decay curve for 14C, while showing some effects of climate change that also show in the tree rings. This means that the method has been validated to within 99.5% accuracy.
... So that's where things really stand. ... No, that's where you stand ... in denial of the evidence already provided. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
You are referring mainly to your Message #3, right? Many of your links don't work. The 1st gives just general info. The 2nd just gives a Table of Contents with links that require subscriber access. The 3rd doesn't work at all. Your main quote about "The Holocene part of the 14c calibration" appears entirely unreferenced. Your key links in Message 4 at the beginning don't work either.
To verify claims dendrochronology can date back 10,000 years or more, I need to find some good sources for this claim. Here is one from BBC saying 5,000 years is possible: BBC - Bonekickers Here is an example of problems found in Dendrochronology, where tree rings which had been matched were discovered to fit at multiple times: Radiocarbon Dating Some useful basic info on Dendrochronology I found here. It appears to be mostly pretty recent research, all done within the past 50 years or so. Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings CalibrationPage not found | M.A. in Art History Presents An informative quote is found here:
quote: http://www.bfafh.de/inst4/42/dendro1.htm#kap3.3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi once again Jzyehoshua
Well, the thread asked for an answer and that's the answer, both Biblically and as I see it from scientific evidence. If the thread wants to consider them inadequate so be it, but that appears the logical Biblical theory for why all 3 methods would be thrown off from a Creationist's standpoint - I doubt you'll hear any other theories. It wasn't an answer and that wasn't a theory. A scientific theory is based on evidence and has been tested. Logical delusion is not scientific, nor a theory. You have not explained HOW they change and WHY they correlate and WHAT your experimental evidence is that validates it. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I just noticed CreationWiki has a reply to a TalkOrigins article on the subject of missing rings:
Dendrochronology is suspect because 2 or more rings can grow per year - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science(Talk.Origins)CB501: Multiple tree rings per year It appears there are multiple potential issues with Dendrochronology that may explain why it isn't more publicly accepted (Googling the term gets just 441,000 results - by comparison a Google of 'Jzyehoshua gets 34,900 results). 1. Two or more tree rings can grow each year.2. Missing tree rings account for 5-20% (accounts differ) of a tree's rings. 3. Tree rings can match one another 99% + statistically for different periods centuries apart. Radiocarbon Dating Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
One of the best Creationist articles on the subject is at Answers in Genesis. It mostly agrees that Dendrochronology appears well cross-matched but does offer one alternative hypothesis on time-staggered repeat disturbances.
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology
| Answers in Genesis
There's a decent paper here as well questioning whether weaknesses in the tree ring ladder may exist where dependence is on a few trees. http://www.thischristianjourney.com/...es/Dating_Methods.htm A guide to Dendrochronological analysis is here: http://dendro.cornell.edu/manuals/howto-english.pdf There's some interesting info here also: http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_4.htm It sounds like ring growths can alter based on a number of factors though, including forest density and even whether the tree grew on a slope, resulting in different ring densities in different parts of the tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I ran a Google News search to see what major news sources had to say on the subject (search here - Click News on left sidebar instead of 'Everything') and came across something VERY interesting.
Turns out Bristlecones have been growing very rapidly in California and Nevada for the past 50 years (basically the same time Dendrochronology's been around) so they assume the rates sped up recently, rather than considering that their ancient dates for the past could be wrong:
quote: Higher Temperatures May Be Behind Pine Growth : NPR It's also mentioned here: Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di Indonesia I also found this showing a case where trees which are supposed to be 1,000 years old were dated at younger ages: The millennium-old olive trees of the Iberian Peninsula are younger than expected | Science Codex Edited by Jzyehoshua, : doesn't show News search for some reason
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
RAZD and others have been providing you with correlations among a variety of dating methods, while you have been providing nothing but "what-ifs" in reply. "What-ifs" are imagined reasons why things might not be as scientists have determined, provided with no supporting data.
Example: Scientist: The sky is blue. Creationist: But what if it was pink in the past? Here is an article that should take care of a lot of your what-ifs, if you are honest about research:
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals Richard G. Fairbanks, et al. Abstract: Radiocarbon dating is the most widely used dating technique in the world. Recent advances in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and sample preparation techniques have reduced the sample-size requirements by a factor of 1000 and decreased the measurement time from weeks to minutes. Today, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of all measurements made on accelerator mass spectrometers are for radiocarbon age dates. The production of 14C in the atmosphere varies through time due to changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field intensity and in its concentration, which is regulated by the carbon cycle. As a result of these two variables, a radiocarbon age is not equivalent to a calendar age. Four decades of joint research by the dendrochronology and radiocarbon communities have produced a radiocarbon calibration data set of remarkable precision and accuracy extending from the present to approximately 12,000 calendar years before present. This paper presents high precision paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C age determinations on pristine coral samples that enable us to extend the radiocarbon calibrationcurve from 12,000 to 50,000 years before present. We developed a statistical model to properly estimate sample age conversion from radiocarbon years to calendar years, taking full account of combined errors in input ages and calibration uncertainties. Our radiocarbon calibration program is publicly accessible at: sonny apache server along with full documentation of the samples, data, and our statistical calibration model. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0277379105001654
Fig. 3. Our coral calibration curve plotted with 1% confidence limits (corresponds to 3σ uncertainties for normal distributions) and coral data plotted with 1σ error bars. Calibration curve is compared to the tree ring chronologies (Reimer et al., 2004; Friedrich et al., 2004). ------------------------ The above is a calibration curve made from two tree ring chronologies and a coral series. At this point you should be starting to get the idea that there is some real science behind these dating methods, and that the creationists' examples are all based on "what-ifs" with no supporting data--especially when multiple dating methods agree as closely as they do.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
This post contains no evidence that tree-ring dating is unreliable.
Your first example shows that some bristlecone pines are growing faster now than in the past. For dating purposes, what would matter is whether they are growing more, or fewer, rings. This study notes that some of the trees are growing thicker rings. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate. Your second example discussed trees thought, from visual inspection, to be at least 1,000 years old. Tree-ring dating showed they were younger. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate. You really need to select your examples with some care that they actually support your arguments.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024