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

I would like to get a PDF ofLaMarche, V.C. Jr., Hirschboek, K.K., Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126I can get the abstract but not the full article, and would rather use this article than a news report on it.message me for emailREWright, R.D., Mooney, H.A., Substrate-oriented Distribution of Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California, American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 257-284 Published by: The University of Notre Dame JSTOR: Access CheckMy Jstor shelf is full so I would need copy of this ... especially Fig 4ThanksEdited by RAZD, : added

From "The Creationists", Ronald Numbers, UC Press 2003 (Paperback) pp 2116-219:

quote:

---

Reading Alfred M. Rehwinkel's The Flood (1950, a popularization of Price's catastrophism by a Missouri Lutheran theologian, got him to thinking again about flood geology, as did a vacation trip in 1956 to Glacier National Park, where he took photographs of what a park ranger identified as the famous Lewis overthrust. His observations strengthened his conviction that Price was right in doubting that overthrusting had occurred and conjured up fantasies of writing a book on the subject. "It may well be possible, if my good fortune, financially, continues for the next four or five years, for me to personally make a study of a large number of areas," he wrote Price on returning home. A detailed investigation of the contact lines in the areas of alleged overthrusting would, he thought, "give some very amazing evidence indicating quite clearly... that the stratified rocks do not occur in any definite order." Though an admitted novice in geology, he felt that his long experience in genetics equipped him with "the ability to see quite clearly natural evidence for what it is actually worth." Still, he hoped to return to the park "with some men having actual geological experience.6

​

{Delete biographies of his companions - JonF}...

​

On the morning of July 5, 1962, Lammerts met Ritland and Hare at Glacier National Park as planned. Together the men hiked up to the overthrust area at the south rim of the park, where the contact line between Precambrian and Cretaceous can be seen for miles. To Ritland and Hare, the evidence of overthrusting, especially signs of grooving and scouring, was "overwhelmingly clear." Lammerts, though appreciative of his young companions' scientific approach to the problem, found himself more confused than convinced. He thought it especially puzzling that Ritland and Hare seemed "so anxious to prove that Price was wrong and that this wrong order formation was really the result of overthrusting." As he descended the mountain, Lammerts appeared "badly shaken." Not only had he just gone on record ill 'The Genesis Flood as discounting the evidence for overthrusting, but, as Ritland and Hare pointed out, the supporting photographs he had given Whitcomb and Morris were of rocks two hundred feet above tile contact line. Besides, he had an article in press at Christianity Today in which he described the thrust faults in Glacier National Park as "purely imaginary. 10

​

His initial reaction was to correct the piece for Christianity Today in light of what he had seen, but he eventually decided there was sufficient ambiguity to justify publishing what he had originally written. This decision "badly disillusioned" Ritland, who felt further chagrined when he read Lammerts's description of him in the article as a Harvard-trained Ph. D. who agreed with Price that "most" of the sedimentary rocks had resulted from Noah's flood. For months after his visit to the Lewis overthrust, Lammerts toyed with a novel flood model of over-thrusting. "Sometimes I wonder if this sort of thing might not have occurred when the strata was [sic] still soft and relatively unconsolidated," he confessed in a letter to Ritland. "Water film as a sliding surface would greatly aid in this type of thing should the physical evidence really indicate that these rocks were not actually deposited in the order in which we now see them." In the end, however, he remained loyal to the Pricean view.11

---

Here it is: --Percy

Excellent. How did you do that?And now that everyone can see it, perhaps someone can weigh in on the lines representing the permanent wilting points. I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the moisture content dips below this line. The PWP is defined as the point at or after which a plant can no longer recover even when placed in a moisture-rich setting. Note that the PWP takes into account water retention properties of the plant in question. So how can trees survive there if moisture content dips below the PWP? Obviously they do survive, so presumably I'm just misunderstanding something. I think RAZD should make sure he understands what's going on here before directing Mindie to it. I can see him pointing out that the fact that the moisture dips below the PWP proves that the trees must be experiencing complete stoppage of growth and are therefore producing more than one annual ring. There may be a difference between the wilting point and the point at which growth ceases.But in any case the curve does illustrate RAZD's point that dolimitic substrates lose moisture gradually and thus we shouldn't expect any extra rings to look like true annual rings, rather they should be morphologically identifiable as stress rings as seen in Message 51.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : wrong message linked.

It is a desperation born of need. C-14 dating cannot just be wrong. It must be wrong by at least a factor of 11 or 12 in order to produce real dates about 4000 - 5000 years in the past for things which are really 40,000 to 50000 years old.Most of us will never be in a debate in which the fate of our immortal souls hangs in the balance, so perhaps we will never know just how silly a position we are willing to take. It is only in that light that I can avoid finding fault with mindspawn.

In windows . you press the 'windows' key (between the alt and the ctl), and then press print screen (to the right of the F12 button). then you can 'paste' it.

Dendrochronology.zipContains "A Recently Developed Irish Tree-Ring Chronology" PDF and "Substrate-oriented Distribution of Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California" DOCX and PDF. The OCR in the DOCX is much better than in the PDF. I take no responsibility for the Latin spellings.The latter paper is well worth reading in its entirety.

can't download it

In what browser? Opera doesn't work, but Chrome does and IE10 does (with a small complaint) and Firefox does.But try here.

that works

We both got it...unpacking now....Thanks, Jon.

Rational thinking is still noticeably absent in Mindspawn's latest post (Message 75). He's arguing that recently discovered minute changes in decay rates mean that decay rates 10 times greater are possible. But the technical paper makes clear that these changes are on the order of ±.001.Mindspawn also needs all isotopes to be affected to the same degree, but the paper says, "This indicates that, as an experimental observation, isotopes have different sensitivities to whatever influence is causing the observed effects."(See Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates, which is the technical paper that is the subject of the Purdue article referenced by Mindspawn, New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning).Mindspawn obviously accepts that we can measure the decay rate of isotopes with an accuracy greater than ±.001, otherwise he would have to reject the these findings of decay rate variability, yet he rejects the possibility of measuring the decay rate of other isotopes like ²³⁴U with any accuracy.--Percy

I don't think he's done that. He's said that U and Th decay rates were "calibrated" from ¹⁴C and therefore calibrating ¹⁴C from U-Th dates is circular reasoning. He's said that the decay rates in the paper he quoted were dependent on "old-age assumptions", and called for counting measurements in the lab. IIRC he's made no comment on the many counting measurements that have been produced, in the debate and other threads.

I'm now sorry that I ever started that Great Debate thread.I should have known it would be useless.

So did Mindspawn just completely ignore the figure showing water retention over a period of weeks in dolomitic substrates? He's still asking for proof that dolomite can retain moisture, proof that has been provided. And he still seems to be maintaining the fantasy that the various dendrochronologies match up as the result of similar weather patterns at widely disparate points around the world.