Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Hi JonF I agree, especially when you consider the correlations, that is a pretty tough argument to make. Which is also why I want to shift the scam part of the argument to the proper scam thread where people have already (I believe) addressed it.Enjoy.

Hi NoNukes, The problem he has, is that there are three independent tree ring chronologies that would all have to be jiggered the exact same way, along with the correlations in them for absolute values of 13C/12C and 14C/12C, AND the correlation of peaks in the 14C/12C data that match the solar cycles that affect 14C production.That is a very hard nut to crack, imho, with just some 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of emails -- he's going to need more than that, he's going to need empirical data to show it is wrong.Enjoy.

Hi revelation, and welcome to the fray. Thank you. It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly.This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results.Enjoy.

Hi kofh2u This is not a thread to discuss interpretations of the biblical accounts, although that could be an interesting thread on it's own.This thread is to discuss the correlations in results from all the systems/methodologies covered in the OP. This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist. As noted above, this could make an interesting topic on it's own.Enjoy.

Hi kofh2u Not really. This is the place where you see how science explains all the correlations in a coherent and rational manner, and that if you think you have a alternate explanation, that you must then also be able to explain all the correlations, or admit that it doesn't explain the evidence that contradicts a young earth.One of the alternatives is that the evidence lies, that it is illusion. This, of course, does not mean that any alternative explanation a person has is then a better explanation, just that any explanation then is equally (in)appropriate, and there is no rational way to pick one over the other. The big problem with this kind of explanation is that it means that whatever creator is behind the evidence being misleading is therefore a liar. Curiously, this does nothing to explain the correlations. Snide comments and ad hominem attacks also do not explain the correlations.Perhaps the thread you are really looking to participate in is the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs threadEnjoy.

Hi kofh2u Curiously it is about debating sciences against beliefs, with each side demonstrating how their side explains reality and the evidence for reality.This thread presents a number of correlations between different age measuring systems, especially ones that rely on direct counting of annual phenomena, and shows how they form a cohesive congruent system of age measurements.The question then posed is that -- if you think the earth is not as old as these measurements show -- how do you explain the correlations. If that is what you believe then there is no need for you to post on this thread -- you essentially agree with it. It is not an attack on the bible, rather it is an attack on an interpretation of the bible that tells people that the earth is young. If you do not ascribe to such an interpretation then this does not attack the bible as you interpret it. How nice that the evidence of reality supports a consistent pattern of age dating methodologies that produce consistence, corroborative and consilient results. That alone appears to support the scientific process. I agree -- the evidence shows that it is old -- and thus there is no need for you to participate further on this thread, as the purpose of the thread is to have people who disagree with the age of the earth to present information on how they explain the correlations that occur.Enjoy.

Start at Message 1Enjoy

From Message 489 of thread Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo where mindspawn says:

quote:

---

Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.

​

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.

​

I have deliberately avoided this topic in this thread because of all the side issues it creates, and there have already been too many side issues. But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc.

​

What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison.

​

PS I am not a YEC, I believe Genesis 1 starts with an earth already in existence, and then we have 6 days of events from the visible perspective from the misty surface of the earth. So I do believe in 6 literal days of creation, but this involves increased visibility in a misty world, and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.

---

So to answer mindspawns post: Curiously this misinformation hand waving dismissal has no effect on the actual science involved. The issue is correlations and why they occur to such a fine degree of accuracy if such errors are rampant. The issue is correlations between dating methods and why they agree so consistently (within 0.5% over 8,000 years with just tree rings .... ) Which to me qualifies as a YEC concept that is invalidated by the information provided on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (three different tree ring chronologies extend to over 12,000 years of life (see Message 3 and Message 4), varves in Lake Suigetsu extend to over 35,000 years of organic life embedded in the varves(see Message 5 and Message 21)). Note that the varves are alternate layers of diatom tests (shells) and slow settling clay (representing summer and winter life cycles).Again the issue is correlations, not just the methodology -- why do all these methods correlate for age, climate and other factors (ratios of 14C/12C ratios same for same layer ages, for instance).This is the correlation between the annual tree rings, climate, sun cycles and the ratios of 14C/12C (see Message 4):404 Page not found (9)

quote:

---

---

Note the little jigs and jags along this curve all match up between the different dendrochronologies -- they are from climate changes and from sun cycles (which can be observed today with the same periodic cycles) -- and how little "scatter" there is in the plot.The overall difference between the data and the theoretical line (at 45°) is due to climate changes, and this curve is used to correct 14C dating to more probable ages ... with the correction making objects tested older than plain vanilla results.Just this information should make you seriously doubt your 7,000 year age for organic life if not trash it altogether (the scientific approach to invalidated concepts).This is the correlation between annual varve layers in Lake Suigetsu, the rate of deposit of the layers, ash deposits from volcanoes, and 14C/12C ratios (see Message 21):The labeled ash deposits have been dated from other locations and correlate with the data here.Note the correlation between C-14 and depth and with C-14 and the varve layer count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. Why?When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:

​

Graph of actual ¹⁴C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"There is no rational reason for the ¹⁴C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does -- age.At this point a rational person that cannot explain these correlations should discard all notions of life limited to the last 7,000 years, but hey: have a whack at trying to explain the correlations and we'll see what happens.Enjoy.

The issue of "Assumed constant decay rate" can be discussed on the Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? thread as well as on this thread with the evidence for the correlation of constant decay rate dating methods with the annual counting methods, noting as I have in Message 9

quote:

---

They measured the age with a radiometric decay system and also measured d¹⁸O and d¹³C as measures of climate. There is a table with the 284 samples by age with d¹⁸O and d¹³C values. For a correlation of that data to the age and climate information we have already see we turn to

​

USGS URL Resolution Error Page (8)

​

Note - "highly correlated" with climatological data from the Vostok ice core data, which "matches almost perfectly" the climatological data from the Greenland ice core data. Corroborated by two independent radiometric methods. The oldest date in the data table is 567,700 years ago.

---

Two radiometric methods were used on the calcite, agreeing with each other, they also correlated the levels of d¹⁸O and d¹³C with the levels in the ice cores annual dating system. The variations in d¹⁸O and d¹³C represent climate variations.There are other ways that radiometric dating correlates with other methods, thus showing the scientific, robust, value of radiometric dating.A good reference to radiometric dating isRadiometric Dating

quote:

---

Radiometric Dating

​

A Christian Perspective

​

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

---

Enjoy.

In Message 497 of Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo midspawn says:

quote:

---

Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. I find the scientific community is unfortunately biased through accepting the theory of evolution too early when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)

​

Due to this bias I cannot be restricted to publications of the scientific community only.

---

What I ask for is an explanation for the correlations: That is the only requirement that I have set out.For instance, if you claim that double rings are common in dendrochronology then you have to explain the correlations with the sun cycles and 14C/12C ratios which would not be changed by whatever causes double rings. Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this. Seems like an excuse to me to avoid having to deal with the information here. This is predictable: most creationists seem to avoid this thread because the information is too dangerous to their beliefs.Enjoy.

See Message 5:

quote:

---

Lake Suigetsu Varves

​

Just a moment... (3)

​

quote:

---

A 75-m long continuous core (Lab code, SG) and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. ...

---

​

Note that annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr B.P if correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and that this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. ...

---

These varves are formed by alternate seasonal deposition: diatoms in the spring and clay the rest of the year.The clay deposition is fairly constant year round, so it is the diatom layers that mark the annual season of growth. Curiously, I am not concerned with the many different kinds of varves, some of which would be problematic for dating, but I am concerned with this one specific type formed by annual layers of diatom shells.Note that clay settles slowly and diatoms settle fast. These varves are in a lake and have nothing to do with tides and seashells. Your discussion of seashell varves is irrelevant to the actual varves in question. A patently false statement. See Message 4 for this correlation of annual tree rings with 14C/12C ratios:

quote:

---

Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.

​

The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:

​

​

(Image based on calibration curvefrom Wikipedia(2) - Both images are in the public domain.)

​

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to C-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.

---

This 14C/12C ratio declines along an exponential curve as predicted by radioactive decay, and this data correlates with the linear curve of tree rings with age.This curve is extended further to cover the current limits of dendrochronology (ibid):

quote:

---

These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

​

404 Page not found (9)

​

quote:

---

---

​

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:

• If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
• The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
• The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

---

So it would have necessarily interrupted the dendrochronology ... which extends to over 12,400 years ago in a continuous uninterrupted sequence. ... but not changing the ratio of 14C/12C. All that carbon would still have the same 14C/12C from when the plants died, the 14C would not decay any faster. You will note that there is no spike or discontinuity in the general slope of the line in the above graph at circa 1500BC.I could not find any relevant link when I googled Kohl's revised dating so I will need more information on this please.But I note that tree rings in the Sierra Nevada, tree rings in Germany, tree rings in Ireland and lake varves in Japan are not affected.But I will also note that volcanic eruptions were cross correlated with the Lake Suigetsu varves (see Message 21):

quote:

---

---

You will note that there is no spike or discontinuity in the general slope of the line in the above graph at circa 1500BC, nor is there a significant change in 14C/12C for each of the volcanic ash deposits noted.This is because the ratio is not changed by the amount of carbon -- both 14C and 12C are increased when vegetation is decomposed\burned etc. Which does not explain the correlations seen with tree rings and lake varves.Sorry, mindspawn, but your concepts of possible causes for errors in age measurements just do not explain the actual objective facts. It is the empirical data and the correlations that prove them to be wrong. This is why the correlations are the issue that you need to explain, not the methods.Enjoy.

I based it on the statement that you made.But this is not a topic for discussion on this thread: please start a new thread to discuss this.I am also asking all other participants not to reply further to this issue on this thread.Thank you.

Hi NoNukes and Dr Adequate (and others reading this)Please stick to the age dating methodology and correlations and not take a side trip to other issues.Thanks.

And I would prefer that you don't respond so that this thread can stay focused on the issues of correlations.I will be marking ALL off-topic posts with jeers to emphasize this point.Please start another topic if you want to pursue this issue.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Edited by RAZD, : splg

Yet, curiously, this is a lake, not a seashore, and the varves have nothing to do with spring tides or regular tides, but with the annual growth and death cycle of diatoms in the lake. AND you would need to show that both are indeed out by a factor of 12 rather than assume that one is (from misinterpretation) and that therefore the other is ...That doesn't explain the correlation. Your link says nothing about 14C. Photosynthesis will cause absorption of both 14C and 12C in the ratio present in the atmosphere.Changing the rate of photosynthesis does not change the ratio of 14C/12C. Trees go through an annual variation in the amount of photosynthesis between winter and summer, and this is WHY there are annual tree rings, but that does not change the 14C/12C ratio in each ring.There is no bias -- and no mechanism to cause bias -- in selecting one isotope of carbon more than another.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...