Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

One alternative is a Great Debate thread -- two people debate a topic, other people participate through messaging or a peanut gallery thread.See The Great Debate forum for some existing debates.If you want I can set it up.Enjoy

Lake Suigetsu - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Lake Suigetsu is a lake in Honshu Island, Japan located near the towns of Mikata and close to the coast of Sea of Japan. Since 1993, it has been attracting the attention of scientists because of the undisturbed nature of the water for many thousands of years. It is possible to identify the annual deposits of silt in a similar manner that tree rings are identified.

​

The only inflow to Lake Suigestu is through a shallow channel from the neighbouring Lake Mikata and there is little outflow. Consequently only the finest sediment comes into the lake.[7] The water is anoxic (deoxygenated) preventing the growth of organisms and due to seasonal variations it is usually but not always possible to distinguish the annual deposits visually. It has taken almost twenty years to overcome the consequent problems, using multiple cores and new detection techniques to complete the sequence.

---

Oops -- no brackish sea water flushing.

quote:

---

The results of research on varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan announced in 2012 realised this aim. "In most cases the radiocarbon levels deduced from marine and other records have not been too far wrong. However, having a truly terrestrial record gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating," said Bronk Ramsey. "It also allows us to look at the differences between the atmosphere and oceans and study the implications for our understanding of the marine environment as part of the global carbon cycle."[4] Results were published in 2012 in the journal Science increasing the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years. [5][6]

---

Looks like I may need to update this section when the next version is made. A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P.
Christopher Bronk Ramsey1,*, Richard A. Staff1, Charlotte L. Bryant2, Fiona Brock1, Hiroyuki Kitagawa3, Johannes van der Plicht4,5, Gordon Schlolaut6, Michael H. Marshall7, Achim Brauer6, Henry F. Lamb7, Rebecca L. Payne8, Pavel E. Tarasov9, Tsuyoshi Haraguchi10, Katsuya Gotanda11, Hitoshi Yonenobu12, Yusuke Yokoyama13, Ryuji Tada13, Takeshi Nakagawa8Science 19 October 2012: Vol. 338 no. 6105 pp. 370-374DOI:10.1126/science.1226660
(should be available at your local library) A New Radiocarbon Yardstick from Japan
Oct 18, 2012 by Andrew Alden from QUEST Northern Californiahttp://www.suigetsu.org/embed.php?File=location.html

quote:

---

Suigetsu forms part of a five lake system, the 'Mikata-goko' ('Mikata Five Lakes'), with Suigetsu representing the largest of these lakes. The only significant water supply into Suigetsu comes via the neighbouring Lake Mikata from the Hasu River. Since Mikata and Suigetsu are connected by a very shallow (approximately 4 m deep) and narrow (approximately 45 m wide) channel, only fine sediment can be carried across into Suigetsu, with any larger material preferentially deposited in Lake Mikata. This hydrological linkage of the two lakes protects Suigetsu from any high energy hydrological events (such as floods), which therefore cannot disturb the basal sediments deposited at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu. Additionally, Suigetsu is naturally protected from winds by the surrounding ring of Palaeozoic hills (with a maximum elevation of approximately 400 m), providing further protection to the deposited benthic sediment.

​

The marked seasonality at Lake Suigetsu generates differential deposition of material through the seasons, which results in the layers within the sediment profile that contribute to the Suigetsu varves. The hydrology of the lake is such that anoxic (deoxygenated) benthic water conditions exist, preventing bioturbation by basal-dwelling organisms. In combination with the physical protection afforded to the lake, these anoxic conditions enable the laminations initially formed to be perfectly preserved in the sedimentary record.

---

Seems to be a pretty isolated system.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added refs and linksEdited by RAZD, : added third link\reference and quote

Done. Watch Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate - mindspawn and RAZD onlymindspawn and RAZD only[/color] for promotion.Edited by RAZD, : .

Thanks for the extra information JonF I'm not seeing much difference -- the inflow to Lake Suigetsu is fresh water from Lake Mikata, which is a freshwater lake, as wiki says:

quote:

---

... The only inflow to Lake Suigestu is through a shallow channel from the neighbouring Lake Mikata and there is little outflow. ...

---

Your link says:

quote:

---

... Urami Canal connecting Lake Suigetsu and Lake Kugushi was constructed in 1664 by artificial means. ...

---

So presumably there was no significant connection prior to that canal, and that is well after the start of the floating chronology.That would still mean "no brackish sea water flushing" (Message 257) yes? This would mean that the clay\silt runoff would be spread evenly over the top layer of the lake in the fresh water and then settle down.Seems to me that the deep salty water would be from ground water (aquifer) being salty due to proximity of oceanInteresting.Enjoy.

Indeed. These ash layers are mentioned in Message 21 where we have this graph:

quote:

---

---

And there is information from other sources dating some of those layers.Enjoy

okay -- lets tackle the novel gene issue first and then we can have another go at the dating issues, either here or in a great debate.See you at Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate -mindspawn and RAZD onlymindspawn and RAZD only[/color]Enjoy

An excellent overview and discussion of the concordance of dates from a variety of sources: Message 254 on the Introduction To Geology threadEnjoy

Looks like I'll need to edit Message 2:http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

quote:

---

A new record holder was recently recognized, a Pinus longaeva growing in the White Mountains of eastern California. The date on this tree was reported to me by Tom Harlan. The tree was cored by Edmund Schulman in the late 1950s but he never had a chance to date it before he died. Tom worked up the core only recently, and knows which tree it is. The tree is still alive, and the age given below, 5062, is the tree's age as of the growing season of 2012.

---

AlsoTHE ANCIENT TREES - Spiritual Forum - Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community

quote:

---

Among the White Mountain specimens, the oldest trees are found on north-facing slopes, with an average of 2,000 years, as compared to the 1,000 year average on the southern slopes. The climate and the durability of their wood can preserve them long after death, with dead trees as old as 7,000 years persisting next to live ones.

---

A standing 7,000 year old dead tree standing near living trees (ie undisturbed by any flood waters ... ) and that can be tied to Methuselah, Prometheus and this new 5,062 year old tree by dendrochronology and cross-dating gives us a very strong chronology.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : 2 not 3

in Message 128 of the Age of mankind, dating, and the flood thread JonF posts

quote:

---

Varves are no longer being produced in Suigetsu. In 1664 they built a canal connecting the freshwater (on top) lake Suigetsu to the brackish lake Hiruga (see Mikata-goko lakes) and that was the end of the show. IIRC there was also an earthquake which may have affected the varve formation.

​

So until recently the Suigetsu varve chronology was "floating"; it didn't contain within itself any known direct link to an independently dateable event. The chronology was anchored by connecting it to dendrochronology by way of 14C dating of both, and solidly anchored tree ring counts.

​

There's been some good progress in another independent anchor, Ar-Ar dating of tephras (from volcanic eruptions) found in the varves. It's a little tricky because they can't collect enough material from the varves to do the dating. But they can do geochemical analysis of the tephras in the varves and correlate that to tephra deposits found nearby which are extensive enough to do the Ar-Ar dating. There's only one result so far but it fits. See Tephra.

---

Adding another dating correlation to the mix.Enjoy

From Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD Message 64

quote:

---

His link is broken but it's Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

​

Thanks! Another piece of information to add to the Age Correlations thread in its next incarnation.

​

quote:

---

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 calibration curve 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.
(c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

---

​

bold added

​

Note high precision and accuracy

---

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Thanks greentwiga Do you have a reference that I can use here to add this to the correlations?Also from JonF on Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD, Message 70

quote:

---

ETA not varves but interesting The Lake Malawi Sediment Chronometer and the Toba Super Eruption. Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology has some comments relevant ...

---

Page not found – Naturalis Historia

quote:

---

... The Toba super eruption has been dated to 74,000 years ago by multiple methods from multiple locations. If this ash layer is, by inference, the same age then a crude estimate of sedimentation rate would be 2800 cm/74,000 years = 0.038 cm/year.

​

So how does this crude estimate based on distance divided by radiometric data stack up to other estimates of sedimentation? Quite well it seems. The current rate of sedimentation in this part of Lake Malawi is around 0.03 to 0.04 cm/year. C14 dates have been taken from multiple positions along the core and in each case dividing the distance between those positions and the dates derived yields values of 0.03 to 0.04 cm/year. Some variation would be expected because the climate has changed in this area from arid times to wetter times which would change the amount of sediment input into the lake. But the overall picture is one where the rate of current sediment accumulation has been relatively constant over a very long time. This Toba ash layer is 28 meters (89 feet) deep and the sediments in the core provide no evidence of any large sudden influx of sediments but rather is fairly uniform except for many very thin layers of ash from volcanic eruptions in central Africa.

​

​

... The Toba volcanic eruption has been dated many times from many locations and has come up as being 74,000 years old. Now ash identified as being from this particular volcanic explosion has been found at 28 meter below the surface. Estimates of sedimentation rate, based on radiometric dating, that were already known for this location in the lake PREDICT that the Toba ash should be found about at this depth in the sediment column and that is where it was found. ...

​

It is just this sort of independent confirmation of predictions that lends further support to the validity of radiometric dating for dating events in earth’s history. There are hundreds of places on earth where similar types of data have been collected and in each case the simplest explanation for the data is that the sediments underlying these lakes have taken a long time to accumulate. ...

---

The 14C dates predict the depth correctly for the age of the Toba eruption.Enjoy

There are three trees that are documented to be over 4800 years old, the oldest is 5014 years old this year.There is no change in the formation of the tree rings during those years.Can you explain this without magic and fantasy?We can discuss how this evidence is tested and validated, if you are interested, and we can discuss how the scientific method can be used to extend this chronology to 8000 years with bristlecone pines, and then to 12000 years with Irish and German oak chronologies.Note that this evidence invalidates any evidence you think demonstrates a young earth.

Questioning Answers In Genesis: Andrew Snelling concedes, radiometric dating of meteorites is solid

quote:

---

Andrew Snelling concedes, radiometric dating of meteorites is solid

​

​

Figure 18 from Snelling (2014), illustrating the frequency of isochron ages obtained from the Allende CV3 carbonaceous chondrite meteorite via six independent radioisotope systems (color coded, in legend). Note the strong peak at 4.56 Ga, the conventional age of our solar system and Earth.

​

After years of sorting through the results of radiometric dates, all placing the age of our Earth and Solar System at ~4.56 billion years, Andrew Snelling has essentially conceded that he cannot twist isochron ages of meteorites and bulk-Earth materials into supporting his already disproven conjectures regarding accelerated nuclear decay. ...

​

To preclude the most parsimonious interpretation of the data, accepted universally by research geologists, Snelling attempts to argue that the 4.56-billion-year age of the meteorite merely reflects the geochemistry of the primordial creation material. ...

​

If we apply Snelling's model to explain the radiochemistry of meteorites, then we must assume that the primordial creation material from which God made the meteorites/planets contained just the right proportion of isotopes so that after x amount of accelerated nuclear decay, all systems appeared to have aged precisely 4.56 billion years. But this is not science, and it barely qualifies as pseudoscience (which at least has the appearance of being scientific). We need a new category to account for the level of deception employed by Andrew Snelling's latest 'research' report. Can you think of an appropriate term?

---

Umm ... bogus?At best he is arguing for gap old earth creation, at worst he is saying that creation included evidence intended to deceive and provide false witness.If we don't assume that the evidence is a joke, a lie, misinformation or illusion, we are left with the overwhelming evidence, not just of age, but of consilience of results that makes the result even stronger: why do all the radiometric systems agree with such precision if they do not accurately portray the reality that the age of the earth is 4.55+ billion years old.In spite of the different radio-isotopes having markedly different decay rates (half-lives), such that each set of isotopes in the decay chains would need to be independently pre-loaded such that they would produce the same - virtually identical - result: either the earth is old or god/s is a joker.Snelling's paper can be read here:https://answersingenesis.org/...-cv3-carbonaceous-chrondriteEnjoy.

So you are arguing for a "gap" old earth argument, which starts with the creation of "primordial" material and then jumps to modern creation of the earth and life? As I understand it there were several different radiometric methods used. U/Pb was one another was Pb/Pb, for example. These either need to "arrive" via decay over 4.55+ billion years OR the proportions of the isotopes need to be "jiggled" so that they appear to measure the same age.I found Snelling's paper to be more confusing than enlightening on how he thought it worked out, with a lot of extraneous information added that increased the obscuring of his results. How do you think this would work?

So you are arguing for a "gap" old earth argument, which starts with the creation of "primordial" material and then jumps to modern creation of life?How far do you go back? Original hydrogen star formation that then made heavier elements in a universe some 12.7 (iirc) billion years old? Which this thread addresses -- tree rings, lake varves, ice layers all show evidence for an earth older than YEC models and consilience with 14C (and other) radiometric systems. And these "reset" systems are used to date those (volcanic origin) rocks. Uranium decay inside zirconium crystals for instance. Well the age of first life has been set around 3.7 billion years ago by radiometric dating of objective evidence, so this evidence shows life on earth at that point in time, and the earth must have existed before then, and the existence of life would mean it is post primordial yes? Like I said, it allows for gap creationism.Edited by RAZD, : 7