|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua
Still trying to throw mud rather than address the correlations. Typical creationists dodge.
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. Let me check:
... The 1st gives just general info. ... Which is what is quoted in Message 3 -- amusingly you can search the site for the paragraphs quoted and see that they are still there.
... The 2nd just gives a Table of Contents with links that require subscriber access. ... So you are incapable of following a table of contents? They have changed the website format since the article was written but the information is still available. You will notice the (4) after the link and the references at the bottom:
quote: Clicking on the archives button on the Radiocarbon website and then finding and clicking on Volume 46, Issue 3 then on the table of contents you find
quote: Then click on the PDF button and you can download a copy of the article herehttps://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4167/3592 ... The 3rd doesn't work at all. ... And you can follow the same path for reference (2) : Radiocarbon (abstract)https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4172/3597 ... Your main quote about "The Holocene part of the 14c calibration" appears entirely unreferenced. Curiously I can still find it in the article referenced (4) per above. Of course this means looking at the reference. Note that this is a scientific journal and the articles don't change after being published. They are also peer reviewed and tested by other scientists.
Your key links in Message 4 at the beginning don't work either. And you should now be able to find those links, with the information I have provided. The reference lists are there for a purpose, not just window-dressing.
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 is a news organization not a scientific journal. It appears that you don't know how (or want) to find "good sources" but are really looking for bad or questionable sources.
Here is an example of problems found in Dendrochronology, where tree rings which had been matched were discovered to fit at multiple times: So somebody tried to do a poor job of matching and intentionally got poor results that they could post to fool the gullibles. Amazing. Proof once again that if you want to see lies and misinformation about science that you should go to a creationist site. Thanks for another creationist hoax link. Unfortunately this still does nothing to explain the correlations: why do the four independent dendrochronologies from different locations, different ecologies and different species match with 99.5% accuracy for 8,000 plus years? Why do the four dendrochronologies show the same ratio of 14C/12C at the same ages? All you have done is the standard creationist attempt to discredit a system that invalidates their beliefs, and you still need to address why the correlations occur if the method is so problematic. Perhaps it is because the science knows how and corrects for the problems that you have brought up, because scientists spend the time to do more than just a couple of ad hoc comparisons.
An informative quote is found here: Yes, I note that what you quoted says
quote: In other words, this shows how the science corrects for the problems of just using simple matches, as was done in your intentionally misleading "detectingdesign.com" link. It tells you why the system is a reliable method. Now, are you going to address the correlations or play more games? 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua
I just noticed CreationWiki has a ... ''' misrepresentation of dendrochronology. Try using a scientific article instead of one from a lawyer creationist who doesn't know truth from fiction.
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). Ah the fallacy of public appeal. Unfortunately, for you, we are talking about science and not popularity. Curiously the last time I checked 441,000>34,900 ... by an order of magnitude. Google RAZD ... About 2,000,000 results ... not all of which are me of course. Google scholar dendrochronology About 18,900 resultsGoogle scholar "tree rings" About 36,800 results Google scholar Jzyehoshua 1 result ... having to do with voter deception, not with science. Google scholar RAZD EvC About 23 results, the first four being me, and the third having to do with this thread ... Of course an informed individual knows that regular google is influenced by the number of posts a person makes, not necessarily on people looking it up. It is also influenced by being on posts on sites like this. All you have shown is that you are prolific, not correct or popular.
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. NONE of which explains the 99.5% accuracy between four independent chronologies, from different locations, from different ecologies, from different species.
ALL of which are controlled for in proper scientific processes, as detailed in the articles about how scientists to the work. Do you not understand that sources of error are actually discussed by the scientists along with ways and means to control their effect in the overall results? Your "detectingdesign" link is giving you misinformation deliberately to fool gullible people. All people like this need to do is look up the scientific process, go to where sources of error are discussed, then replicate those errors intentionally and claim that they have found a problem with the method while failing to mention the means used to control the error. Your complete lack of skepticism for websites like this is astounding for someone who claims to be a skeptic that checks all their sources. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua
Do you know what a correlation is? It does not appear that you do, as you have not discussed them at all.
quote: What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age, climate and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%? It should be stunningly obvious that the methodology is both accurate and consistently so when done properly.
One of the best Creationist articles on the subject is at Answers in Genesis. ... I'm glad you said one of the best ... because it isn't very good for you:
quote: They have to make up "migrating ring-disturbing events" ... and then hypothesize thousands of them occurring even though there is no evidence of them not being accounted for in the scientific analysis. There analysis is bogus, and one way for you to see this is their claim re 14C ages
quote: The 14C dates are actually younger than the tree ring dates, not older, and the tree rings are being used to calibrate the 14C dates, not the other way around.
If you are truly a skeptical investigator then this should raise big red flags about the accuracy of their information.
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. Which is not the case here.
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. Which is accounted for when they do the cross-matching. the changes in SIZE of the tree rings does not change the COUNT of the rings, and the patterns of climate are the same even though one tree produces thicker rings in general than another tree (ie due to age and ecological factors). It is the pattern not the absolute thickness.
It sounds like ... ... you still cannot explain the correlations. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua, still doing the creationist shuck and jive eh?
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 ... Amusingly this shows very clearly how tree ring data can provide climate information. But the questions for you are
Do you even begin to understand that this is essentially irrelevant because it does not affect the dendrochronology nor the correlations with the other dendrochronologies? Do you understand that you are demonstrating an apparent inability to learn the basics of dendrochronology when you post things like this? You have now posted over 25 posts on this thread and not one of them addresses the correlations. That is epic fail. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi foreveryoung, welcome to the thread.
All this means is that dendrochronologies are accurate for dating the last 8,000 years. ... Thank you for saying that. This is the initial stages of this thread information, but a good starting point. It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous.
... This is a far cry from proving the earth is 4.56 billion years old. Curiously, that is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to show the evidence that invalidates the concept of a young earth. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks foreveryoung,
... . I am not a 6000 year old earth YEC however. I am a young earther in the sense that I see no reason why the earth is older than 1 million years old. ... I would not characterize that as young earth so much as middle-age earth (as opposed to old age earthers which accept 4.55 billion years). We can get to this later.
If you do not hold to the Ushher interpretation of biblical genealogies, 1 million years is not a contradiction to the genesis creation text. There may be some that would be interested in a new thread on this. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi foreveryoung,
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. ... And this should be (and has been) discussed on your thread. it is off-topic here where the issue is correlations between dating methods, including the correlations between radioactive dating methods and non-radioactive dating methods that show the accuracy of the radioactive dating methods. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dwise1
So then, please, on what do you base your one-million-year maximum age? A great topic for a new thread. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Chuck77, hope you are well.
It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous. RAZD this thread is a little over my head but I'll try to try and grasp it the best I can hopefully. What do you mean here? The dendrochronologies are built up from living trees and from dead trees and fallen trees and even on some bits and pieces of trees (anything large enough to have enough rings to be able to match sufficiently with climate patterns of other pieces). (1) If there had been a world wide flood for the duration purported to occur and under the conditions purported to apply, there would have been a point at which there were no living trees, and there would be no evidence bridging any gap between pre-flood and post-flood growth -- without invoking some miracle anyway. (2) If there had been a world wide flood then any loose bits of wood would have floated away. Logically then, a complete dendrochronology should only be able to be compiled in a post-flood time. This point is also recognized by AIG:
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology
| Answers in Genesis
quote: Similar considerations would apply to the other three dendrochronologies, especially as they do not have the long lives of the Bristlecone Pines, yet they all agree with a 99.5% accuracy. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JonF
foreveryoung moved his post to Message 127 of Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?. Please reply there Enjoyby 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jzyehoshua
I've reposted part of your new thread here to debate the dating methodology you are challenging. Your challenge here is to explain the correlations between these methodologies and why -- if the methods are so weak -- they correlate so well. Please read from Message 1 through the various methods before replying. from Message 2 of thread Climategate Email Quotes on Dendrochronology, Ice Cores, and Coral Dating in the Proposed New Topics forum
quote: From the Climategate emails, it appears evident the multiproxy dating approach actually involves methods which all have serious methodology issues. Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods. ... Curiously, those methods are discussed in detail in this thread, where no creationist has yet been able to explain the correlations between the methodologies -- perhaps you can be the first in over 963 posts to do this.
quote: It's your move. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jzyehoshua
You don't need to 'yell' (bold everything) - I read it the first time. Simple question: have you read this thread for the posts covering the same methodologies and how they DO correlate? Message 2 to Message 8? If not, you may be using second or third hand information, instead of primary information. Note that I have included in the references links to the primary papers involved. The ones here covering tree rings and varve layers were very skeptically evaluated by the scientists working on carbon 14 dating corrections due to climate\solar effects on 14C production and changes in the past. On the tree chronologies there are three that run over 8,000 years with an error of 0.5%, each independently derived and each from different locations on the earth. This error was considered too much for the 14C correlation people so they discarded the outlier to reduce it. Such is the amount of error that was involved - rather insignificant imho. abe:
quote: If there were a temperature effect, then it should be different between the Bristlecone Pines (top of the Sierra Mountains, high elevation affecting temperatures) and the oaks (~ocean level temperatures), and this is the one discarded for the 0.5% error. Still insignificant imho. /abe Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jzyehoshua,
Sorry, I missed this one earlier. There is some discussion on Topic Proposal Issues Message 444 regarding your proposed post and I think\agree that the scam\fraud part should be better addressed on the Global Warming is a Scam as it already addresses the scam issue. If you want to take it there I will be happy to follow. Note we are just trying to sort your issues out to the best threads to address the issues. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
I don't think this is fair to poster J. If he thinks there is a refutation of dating here, he ought to have the opportunity to make his case. At the very least he is owed a discussion of why the emails don't really challenge dating. Challenge the dating here yes, pursue the scam aspect no - that is better under the other existing scam thread. They are related but separate issues, and can be treated better on two threads than one, imho. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JonF
The simple explanation is that none of the methods mentioned in the emails he posted are dating methods. They are paleoclimatology methods. E.g. 18O is not radioactive, 18O/16O ratios are "used as a measure of the temperature of precipitation, as a measure of groundwater/mineral interactions, as an indicator of processes that show isotopic fractionation, like methanogenesis. In paleosciences, 18O:16O data from corals, foraminifera and ice cores are used as a proxy for temperature." (from Wikipedia). Agreed, they tell us a bit of what the biology and climate was like, rather than the ages when they were produced\consumed etc by biological processes, but they need to be tied into dates to be of value. And while they are not used for dating per se, they ARE used for correlations on this thread. See Message 9 for examples. These correlations tie the radiometric (thorium-230 and Protactinium-231) methodology dates to the ice core dates, validating those methods. That does make them topical. And, of course, if doubt is cast on the ice core data, then one also needs to explain how the correlations with both of the radiometric methods occur simultaneously to give the exact same errors. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : englsh Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024