Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

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, : .

This is exactly the stuff that a zealot would misread as saying that U-Th chronology was calibrated against C-14 dating, rather than vice versa.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not only are they using mass spec to get vastly more accurate results than the old radiodecay method, but they are using statistics to eliminate problems with the wiggle graph that comes out of the correlation with dendrochronology. Scientists have combined short lived samples, such as grasses and seeds, if they have enough, to get dates for the start and end of the Kingdoms of Egypt. They get +/- 13 years for the New Kingdom, vastly more accurate than they can get from a single sample.I was able to combine their results with the Heliacal rising of Sothis, the Eclipse of Mursili, and the lunar dates to get a great set of dates for the New Kingdom Pharaohs. They are sometimes closer to the middle dates and sometimes the lower. It does eliminate the alternate dates for each of these events. Only one set of dates fits all of these points. This C14 work is great.

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

The ref is:
Just a moment...They give dates for the New Kingdom Pharaohs, but all that I understand is that they dated the start and end of the New Kingdom, using a Bayesian model.I came up with slightly different dates for the various New Kingdom Pharaohs using the other absolute dates (Sothis, Eclipse, Lunar.) Of course, I then went on to use these C14 dates to verify the Bible.

If the C14 absolute dates are right, then it should agree with other absolute dates.
The Start of the New Kingdom is 1557 BC=/-13 years. I used 1552 for Ahmose. Then there were two possible dates for the Sothic date of Amenhotep I, 1546 or 1526. I used the ~1526 date. The Sothic obs can be +/-3y, so I used 1527. Thuthose III lunar sightings give the start of his reign as either 1504 or 1479. 1479 fit. Mursili's Eclipse was either 1312 or 1308 BC. 1312 lead to the death of Tutankhamon in 1326 BC. Then Lunar sightings in Rameses II calculate the start of his reign as 1304 or 1279. 1279 is the date. Finally they calculated the end of the New kingdom as 1113 BC +/- 13 y. I got 1103. I used the various most commonly accepted lengths of each Pharaoh's reign and tried different combinations. I was not able to get alternate dates for these other astronomical events to all work. These choices do work, and show that C14 dating is supported by astronomical absolute dating in addition to the other methods.

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.

No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.

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.

What consillience is violated? I am not aware of any radiometric dating in the vicinity of 4 billion years that couldn't be 'explained' as being primordial material. Dates of moon rocks? Dates of the occasional rare old dating earth rock? All possibly primordial material.In fact, we theorize/know that the materials of the solar system and of the earth itself all came from solar activity (super nova and nova) in some time before the creation of the universe. How then do they date to only the creation of the solar system? Must be some kind of reset unless the time between the creation of the meteorites and the creation of the solar system is negligible. Isn't our acceptance that they do tied up in our theory of how the universe was created? And if we change that to some kind of more gentle supernatural means then why couldn't the solar system be much younger than the meteorite, since no change in decay rates is involved. Why does that not explain consillience?Of the radiometric dates, C-14 dates are definitely of post creation origin and are already problematic for YECs, but of course they have separate issues and can be attacked without monkeying with decay rates. Also there are long aged radiometric dates that we know have been reset by the geology on earth. Those cannot be primordial. But does any of that get near 1 billion years old. I don't know, but my impression is that the primordial possibility is not so easily shaken. At least I don't see such a counter argument spelled out in your post.

If I understand your question correctly, it has to do with the time that elements are incorporated into the materials that make up the earth, etc.In other words, K40 begins decaying immediately after formation in some solar event. But only some of the remaining K40 can be incorporated into biotite at some later date. The biotite K40 clock did not start until that time. Does that make sense? I think it is argued that consilience cannot happen if decay constants changed in the past for all types of decay to result in concordant dates. I suppose it could be engineered somehow, but evidence for that is non-existent.Is this what you are talking about?

Yes, that is the answer to the conventional YEC argument, and generally consilience is enough to answer such arguments.But the argument we are discussing does not involve changes of decay rate. It is agreed that 4.5+ billion years passed since the formation of the materials in meteorites. The argument is that the material in the solar system is 4.55 billion years old, but that some fraction of that time is taken up between time the materials were created and the solar system was formed.As I understand your comment, my question takes what you say into account except I would have talked about U238 rather than your example of K40. If the answer is that U238 dates were reset during the formation of the solar system (or maybe even the universe), then the answer is also dependent on the process of formations. YECs would insist on hocus pocus that would not do resetting rather than some violent heat pressure intensive process that would reset.Side issue: K40 dates don't really overlap with U238 dates do they? Do any radiometric dates overlap with U238 dates?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The agreement between the different radiometric dating methods is the issue. They are based on very different physical processes and yet they all agree. And are also not in disagreement with any other ways of estimating the time that has passed.If I had an atomic clock, a pendulum clock with hanging weights, a modern quartz watch and a wind up wrist watch which all agree on the amount of time that has passed then it would be a bit crazy to decide that the time interval is not correct and that somehow they are all running slow (or fast) to the same degree.

I see that I have not expressed my question clearly. I understand the point that radioactive decay rates have not changed. I've argued the evidence for that point here on a number of occasions.However, I also understand that there is very little radiometric evidence on earth of a 4+ billion year formation. It is also the case that material on earth arrived from outside of the solar system and thus at least conceivable might predate the formation of the earth by a large margin. No changes in decay rates would be required.

I understand better now (or should have read more carefully before). You are correct that we haven't found anything on the planet that is original, unaltered material from it's initial formation.However, everything we have that is clearly younger than the earth points back to an origin of 4+ billion years. In addition there is good reason to expect the moon to be close to the same age as the earth but possibly younger and it dates to the same time.In addition, because of the nature of the materials in the meteorites, there is good reason to expect them or at least most of them to originate at the time of the formation of the solar system too and they date in the 4+ billion year time as well.You are right that there is some mixing in of the idea of how the solar system formed mixed into the thinking here but if that is ignored that there is still have another form of consillience to explain-- that of the agreement of measurements made of the different samples -- earth based material, meteorites and the moon samples.