|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Age Dating CorrelationsFor anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is:
I started with a post on a Netscape Message Board (Msg#110611 [Age Dating] thread, hyperlinked new), making some typo corrections, replacing some broken links (and associated quotes) and reformatting it into a more readable essay, and and finally, expanded it by adding some further bits of information. I felt it should be put together as a new post because it is important to understand the kind of thing scientists do to validate their methods. All references are hyperlinked for further study. The bottom Line? All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap, thus they corroborate each other even though they are based on different environments, different methods and different evidence. For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a short (4-5 day?) period, and it would have to mimic it to such an extent that it would be experienced by any living plant or creature as an actual annual time period. Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe). Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data. Rational people can go further and see that the probable age is much older than that. There is data available for instance that is cross referenced between radiometric dating, biological layering and astrophysics that shows that life on this planet is at least 400 million years old. Inferred Minimum age of the earth = 400,000,000 years based on cross-referenced data. Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old. Minimum scientific age of the earth = 4,550,000,000 years... and counting. Bristlecone Pines By counting tree rings and matching the overlapping patterns of growth from live to dead trees, scientists have developed a tree-ring chronology of nearly 10,000 years using wood from the Schulman Grove area, California (one tree still living is 4600 years old). Quotes from the Bristlecone pine website:The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV.The "Methusulah" specimen was cut down in 1957, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,836 years (and counting). Another site with Bristlecone Pine data is Great Basin National Park: The Forest Service granted permission for the researcher to take core samples from several old-looking bristlecone pines and to cut one down. Bristlecone pines often grow in a twisted fashion. Also, one section of the tree may die off even a couple thousand years before another part. This means it can be very difficult to capture the oldest part of the tree in a core sample. The tree that was cut down in 1964--while still living--has since become know to some as "Prometheus." Also see "The Ancient Bristlecone Pine"and "California's Ancient Bristlecone Pines, the Oldest Living Things" Minimum age of the earth = 8,000 years based on this data. European Oaks My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates. From Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring DatingOak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.Note that there are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and that all the species show the same trends in world climate. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Minimum age of the earth = 10,000 years based on this data. Lake Suigetsu Varves By counting varve layers of diatoms (* if link doesn't work, try this site or see below) in Lake Suigetsu in Japan, scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to establish a chronology extending the calibration of radiocarbon dating to 45,000 years ago as well as confirming the tree ring data (note - the carbon 14 abbreviation used in article changed to "C-14" here for consistency):Lake Suigetsu is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan. A 75-m long continuous core was taken from the center of the lake. The sediments are characterized by dark-coloured clay with white layers due to spring season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin, sub-millimeter scale laminations or "varves". Based on observation of varve thickness change, we expect that the annually laminated sediment records the palaeoenvironmental changes during the past 100 ka. Minimum age of the earth = 45,000 years based on this data. Note that the climatological information from the varves matches that from dendrochronology for the period of overlap. Note further that this is beyond (and thus confirms) the dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. Now we have a problem for some people, because we now have confirmed the existence of people back before the supposed biblical beginning of the world according to the "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) model, and we have hardly begun to get into the Hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth. Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating. And there is more to come ... but first ...
(*) if the above link does not work, the article can be found copied to accuracyingenesis.com - Lake Varves along with some discussion of the implications. Carbon 14 Radiometric Dating The Carbon 14 (C-14) data not only corroborates the tree ring and lake varve data, but the measurement system is validated by these studies (especially the varve study) as accurate. The half life of C-14 means that the practical limit to dating objects by this method is about 50,000 years. The time scale for this dating method was originally based on the current levels of C-14 and assuming they were constant back in time. The calibration of the C-14 by the diatom varves is not to correct the method of doing the tests or the basis of the testing (whether underwater or not), but to adjust for variations in the amount of solar radiation that causes C-14 to occur (and then start decaying). This fine tunes the result so that the margin of error is reduced. This calibration also shows specimens are actually a little older than predicted by the theories by about 1% to 2%. Hence radiocarbon dating is confirmed by counting actual years of actual layers of actual growth to 45,000 years ago. More than that, the correspondence of actual dates to the predicted dates from just the physical considerations of the test confirm that it is an accurate method of dating pre-historic artifacts and organic objects up to 50,000 years ago, and using the calibration from the lake varves means that results are based on actual prehistoric worldwide atmospheric C-14 levels rather than theoretical levels. A good overview of the method, problems, limitations and accuracy of radiometric Carbon 14 dating can be found at Carbon Dating:Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun. (Specifically, neutrons hit nitrogen-14 atoms and transmute them to carbon.)This site also seems to cover most of the bases the creatortionistas try to use to discredit it ("creatortionistas" being a term I use for creationists that intentionally misrepresent facts, misquote statements by scientists and the like). Ice Cores in Greenland The Greenland Ice Core dating is well established:Combined with highly advanced measuring techniques (Fuhrer et al. 1993; Hammer et al. 1985;Rthlisberger et al. 2000) the resolution of the Greenland ice-core records can frequently be finer than a year, and potentially this degree of temporal resolution extends back to before 100 thousand years before present. The records are capable therefore of providing information on long-term (millennial, supra-millennial) and short-term (sub-millennial to annual or seasonal) cycles or trends in the Earth’s past environmental history, as well as on important singular events, such as major volcanic eruptions or particularly pronounced climatic shifts. Furthermore, the age and durations of past environmental events can be estimated by counting of the annual ice increments, by analysing selected constituents combined with visual core stratigraphy (Alley et al.1993; Hammer et al. in press,1999?; Hammer et al. 1978; Meese et al. 1997).While the cores extend below 2790 meters in depth, they are jumbled below that level and dating the age of the lower ice is not reliable. The layers down to 2790 m correlate to 110,000 years ago: The similarity (discussed below) of the GISP2 and GRIP records is compelling evidence that the stratigraphy of the ice is reliable and unaffected by extensive folding, intrusion, or hiatuses from the surface to 2790 m (110,000 years ago). This agreement (between the two cores separated by 30 km, 10 ice thicknesses) provides strong support of climatic origin for even the minor features of the records and implies that investigations of subtle environmental signals (e.g., rapid climate change events with 1-2 year onset and termination) can be rigorously pursued.The ice below the 2790 meter level means that the earth is older than 110,000 years, but: Minimum age of the earth = 110,000 years based on this data. Ice Cores in Antarctica The layers of the Vostok Ice Cores have been measured independently by several scientists using a variety of methods. There is some uncertainty involved on some layers resulting in minor discrepancies in the data. From Vostok Ice Core DataIn January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999).Depending on where you want to cut it, there is high concordance with an age of 137,842 years at the 1934 meter depth, and good concordance with both the 155,027 year age at 2082 meter depth and the 246,250 year age at the 2757 meter depth. Note that the ice core extends beyond these depths and the data ends because of limitations in the measurements (indicating an older overall age for the ice cap). Notice too, that the Petit data is consistently under the averages at these depths -- this would give a high degree of confidence that the minimum age of the ice cap is 422,776 years. Minimum age of the earth = 422,776 years based on this data. There is also a discussion of the age of icecaps at TalkOrigins.com The Devil's Hole See websites at:USGS URL Resolution Error PageUSGS URL Resolution Error Page and USGS URL Resolution Error Page: Devils Hole is a tectonically formed cave developed in the discharge zone of a regional aquifer in south-central Nevada. (See Riggs, et al., 1994.) The walls of this subaqueous cavern are coated with dense vein calcite which provides an ideal material for precise uranium-series dating via thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS). Devils Hole Core DH-11 is a 36-cm-long core of vein calcite from which we obtained an approximately 500,000-year-long continuous record of paleotemperature and other climatic proxies. Data from this core were recently used by Winograd and others (1997) to discuss the length and stability of the last four interglaciations.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. Measured by counting layers and corroborated by two independant radiometric methods. The oldest date in the data table is 567,700 years ago. Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on this data. Thorium-230 Radiometric Dating Note that radiometric dating information and their relation to the other dating systems (such as the ones noted above) are all discussed by this website: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. These are some quotes from the website relating to Thorium-230 dating technique:Two of the most frequently-used of these "uranium-series" systems are uranium-234 and thorium-230.As the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the T-230 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parentU-234, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite. See also Wikipedia.com -[Thorium] Protactinium-231 Radiometric Dating From Wikipedia.com - [Age of the Earth] these quotes:Another relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-238 into thorium-230, a process with a half-life of 80,000 years It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.The U-235 to P-231 decay is from a different series than the (U-238 to) U-234 to T-230 decay, so the two are independent of each other. Again, as the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the P-231 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-235, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite. See also Wikipedia.com - [Protactinium] Talking Coral Heads Now we are going to introduce a twist. Coral heads put down growth layers just like trees and other organic systems. From Estimating past sea-surface temperatures from corals:Some species of corals have stony skeletons, consisting almost entirely of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the term coral is often applied to the skeletons themselves.... There are three kinds of this skeletal material, i.e. plate-like, branching, and ‘massive’. The last is rounded and bulky and proves to be useful for estimating past sea-surface temperatures (SST) in tropical regions.So where's the twist? Those dates are pretty insignificant compared to the other data, right? The twist comes from ancient corals. Sure, one can assemble all the coral cores and align them by seasonal variations and piece together a database similar to the tree ring data bases we started with, but as it sits now there are not enough cores to assemble without significant gaps in between (I fully expect a complete database to be assembled over time). For now we can assemble the bits and pieces, placing the ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (T-230 and P-231 are used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who doubt radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation? The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system. From CoralGrowth and Geochronometry (Nature, March 9, 1963 By Prof. John W. Wells):The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago). Probable Minimum age of the earth = 400,000,000 years based on this data. At this point we have moved from hard evidence of actual years into inferred evidence, waiting for the hard evidence to fill in the gaps. As this is also a biological bit of evidence we can also say that the (inferred) probable minimum age of life on earth is 400 million years. Other Information Another site that discusses radiometric dating information and their relation to the other dating systems (such as the ones noted above) is on this website: An Essay on Radiometric Dating By Jonathon Woolf There are also a bunch of 'slide-shows' available. See the complete set of slide shows - some of the pertinent ones are: Coral Cores A neat overview of the Coral Core method and results Tree Rings Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation, Low Latitude Ice Cores: Ice Core techniques (Good picture of layers on slide 3) and results for two glaciers near the equator in South America, extending back 1500 years (slide 6), with 'little ice age' confirmed and discussions on the relative dO16 and dO18 ratios (slide 11), and in China extending back 40,000 years (slide 17). "Putting politics aside, researchers operate in a truly international scientific community, one whose only boundaries are those of knowledge." Ice Ages an overview of ice ages in earths past, and mentions the flood (slide 6), Milankovitch (slide 11) ... good example of the growth and development of the scientific theory process in explaining the known data as new information is added. ... can we have a little hmmm now? yes we can ... Time is on my side, yes it isTime is on my side, yes it is Now you always sayThat you want to be free But you'll come running back (said you would baby) You'll come running back (I said so many times before) You'll come running back to me Oh, time is on my side, yes it isTime is on my side, yes it is You're searching for good timesBut just wait and see You'll come running back (I won't have to worry no more) You'll come running back (spend the rest of my life with you, baby) You'll come running back to me Go ahead, go ahead and light up the townAnd baby, do everything your heart desires Remember, I'll always be around And I know, I know Like I told you so many times before You're gonna come back, baby 'Cause I know You're gonna come back knocking Yeah, knocking right on my door Yes, yes! Well, time is on my side, yes it isTime is on my side, yes it is 'Cause I got the real loveThe kind that you need You'll come running back (said you would, baby) You'll come running back (I don't always said you would) You'll come running back (I won't have to worry no more) Yes time, time, time is on my side, yes it is Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is Oh, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is I said, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is Oh, time, time, time is on my side Yeah, time, time, time is on my side - Rolling Stones (yeah, I know ... they are as old as the dinosaurs ...)Enjoy {{edit fixed link on Greenland Ice Cores}}[This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-26-2004] {{edit added material in pink}}[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-08-2004] {{edit changed link on Suigetsu Lake Varves}}[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-08-2004] {{edit changed link back on Suigetsu Lake Varves}} [This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-28-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I notice from another thread that you list yourself as YEC.
I am curious how you can reconcile that with the evidence for an old earth and why, specifically you feel YE is necessary? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think you may be too hard on faith.
The concept of a young earth is based on assumptions based on interpretations based on translations based on ... you get the idea. I have seen estimates by YEC's ranging from 4,000 years old to 12,000 years old, so there is obviously a lot of "wiggle room" in making such calculations. Beliefs in the Earth's age discusses some sources of errors. once there are gaps in the dating ... (what gaps in creationism???) ... then the result must be questioned. when there is evidence to the contrary the result must be revised. the proof of the earth orbiting the sun was seen as a test of truth by many, but the faith has survived. it will survive the loss of YEC as well. ever read the Jefferson Bible? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true. I do enjoy sarcasm. Seriously though heliocentrism dislodged the earth from being the center of the universe and the christian faith has survived. Is age that different a "challenge" to the faith? I think it is less so, as the age is ultimately indeterminate from the bible ... have you tried?
Understood, sounds pretty interesting, but the "Supernatural" elements which are discussed here, I believe as truth, so why read a "Jefferson" Bible, when I have it in my grasp in the KJV, NIV? If you consider that the Jefferson is the ultimate distillation of the bible, then you know it cannot be totally discredited. Where there are supernatural elements that cannot be refuted by factual evidence, then those too cannot be discredited. Faith in jesus as the son of god is one of those elements. The fact that there are many sects of christianity that do not require a literal interpretation of the bible, to say nothing of requiring a young earth, shows that christianity will survive the loss of the YE model ... it is already doing so. Not that everyone will be convinced, there are still some flatearthers after all. I believe that there are elements of truth in all religions, and if you look for concordance you can find it -- religious experience of ascetics for example cover the earth and appear in most (I do not know "all") religions. What is wrong with Old Earth Creationism? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I know
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would say that the bible doesn't even begin to give a clue to the age of the earth, but that is my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what do you get when you add 4 apples, {x}, 5 pears, {n} and a pomegranate? then throw in "a day is as a thousand years" (or whatever it is), mix with essence de rien, some merit for good measure, and a measure of incensed patriarchs?
curious. ps - love the chicken dance (turn sound on) {{fix link}} [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-25-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have edited the original essay to include a new paragraph under oak dendrochronology and to supply a secondary source for the Lake Suigetsu Varve work done by Dr. Kitagawa et al (the original seems to be offline, but I hope it will be restored).
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
changed link to one provided by Bill Birkeland
thanks! we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
welcome to the board from a relative newbie
if you use the little [reply] button with the red arrow at the end of the message you are replying to then it gets linked, as mine is to yours -- that helps know which previous poster your reply is for. I take that you have no problem with the concept of a very old earth... enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Its quite interesting your tree rings supports that the fossil record is quite young Actually the tree ring data itself does not speak to the absolute age of anything older than their record, whether it is 11,000 years or 4.55 billion years ... but it (1) sets a lower boundary below which the age of the earth cannot rationally be considered (it would be irrational to simply reject the data), and (2) sets a mark on the geological column of age of relative dating such that anything below that age limit must be older, with layers far below being a lot older. In addition comparison of those tree ring ages with other dating methods like Carbon-14 show a strong correlation with the data justifying faith in such dating beyond those limits. The rational conclusion is that most of the fossil record is a lot older than the tree ring data by orders of magnitude. The problems of Humphreys with Helium and Snelling with argon 36 do not correlate to the same climatological trends in all these age dating methods. This is where the critiques fall down in a jumble without going into the already available literature on why Humprheys and Snelling are mistaken in their information (suggested research -- see talkorigins ...) -- a full critique of age dating methods must show not only that each method is wrong but how it can have produced such similar data.
were to believe that there are not other like problems with all the dating methods, due to leaching, or simply due to proportional translocation of minerals in the rock sediments even before they erupted out of the earth, Note that you are using canned criticism for information not included in the essay -- actual annual layers that show age and climatological trends, trends consistent for each of these different systems regardless that they are based on entirely different processes and different locations on earth. Note further that clinging desperately to the young apparent age left by the tree ring data that can only be justified by ignoring the remainder of the dating methods shows that your "bubble filter" must be hard at work. And it is still older than the YEC model, just not by much.
what has toe to offer that ID has not Perhaps you could give an example of something that ID has to offer? If so, I suggest that it be presented on the "is ID properly pursued?" (click) thread or as a new topic under the Intelligent Design Forum. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suggest you take this to"is ID properly pursued?" (click) thread or start a new topic under the Intelligent Design Forum.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
P.S. This is one perspective that an Old Earth Creationists might take, where the rocks would date old, but the fossils would be quite young, the problem is the evolutionists had no way to date fossil imprints, so they created an illusion that its possible to date these old rocks and say these young fossils buried within are that old, etc... why is your "PS" on topic and your main message off? curious .... Problem with your statement is that the age of the earth as confirmed by the annual layers is old enough to show that your statement is wrong. Carbon-14 is correlated with known annual rings back to 45,000 years ago showing that the method is both accurate and reliable, with the accuracy improved by using the actual annual data to show the ancient C-14 levels available in the atmosphere. The graph is
notice that the points form a distinct correlation with very little "scatter" that one would expect from an innaccurate system. This method has been used to date organic artifacts such as those made of wood that have obviously been made -- carved with patterns, tied with thongs, and holding chipped rocks -- and those artifacts date those human activities. From the original post:
early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. Dating of organic artifacts by C-14 verifies their age, C-14 verified by actual annual layers. Age based on actual objects by method shown to be accurate by actual annual layers giving real years. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
talking thousands of years with tree rings, and varves that does suggest the fossils are not millions of years old, meaning toe is a dead theory Those points on the curve provided above are actual organic objects dated by C-14 and placed according to their age as determined by counting the annual layers, showing organic material was alive and well at least 45,000 years ago. Objects that have not yet become fossils. What this material confirms is that the ages of the earth as determined by science for objects within the last 45,000 years is correct, regardless of any contrived scenarios of Humphery and Snelling. 45,000 out of 4,550,000,000 confirmed by actual counting of biologically generated annual layers, or the top 0.001% of geological time scale confirmed does not mean that the rest is not confirmed or even in jeopardy as the methods of determining those greater ages has also been confirmed. In point of fact the varve and tree ring data does suggest that fossils can be millions of years old, it just is not capable of determining how many millions are involved. Likewise the ice core and calcite layer data show that their age confirms the geological dates derived by other methods, including radiometric methods and thus confirm that fossils can be older than 567,700 years old, or only the top 0.01% of the geological time scale. This still does not mean that the rest is unconfirmed or even in jeopardy as the methods of determining those greater ages has also been confirmed. Those same layers confirm the age dating ability of the radiometric methods used on them, methods that also date fossils in the same aged bands of sediment world wide, and that also date older fossils like the 400,000,000 year old coral heads (400 million year old fossil) which also correlates with the astronomical data on the deep time history of the earth-moon system. Your conclusions are contradicted by the rest of the data. It would appear that this information is not being processed. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but would think that storms would stir up the clays including whatever diatoms your talking about If the lake were stirred up there would not be any layers. If the lake were stirred up there would not be the correlation of the climates for each of the annual years with the same climate patterns for the other annual layers in the list -- the dendrochronological layers at the beginning, and the ice cap layers and the calcite devil's hole layers at the end ... correlations of matching global climate patterns for each different system in all the different locations on earth. re your message #41:
the problem might be, why is there C-14 in all organic fossils ever found, it appears that that the fossil record is quite young, in light that C-14 half life is only 30,000 years others have talked about some of your issues. The half life is the time period for one half of the atoms to decay. After another half life half of the remaining atoms have decayed (leaving 1/4) after 3 there is 1/8th ... etc. -- theoretically it never gets to zero, but in practice it gets to such a low level that it is not detectable against the effect of background radiation ... that point is about 50,000 years for C-14. Finding minute trace quantities of C-14 in really old fossils or coal or whatever does not mean there is a problem, as this is predicted by the model -- just that the quantities are too small to establish a reliable date from the information available. C-14 dating of old bones is generally not done because of material used to preserve the bones contaminating the C-14 base. Walt is engaging in deliberately bad science knowing full well that the results will seem bogus to people unaware of proper procedures. For real information on the accuracy of C-14 dating readDr Weins at Radiometric Dating a christian scientist with "a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory." In short a scientist in the actual field of radiometric dating.go to page 13 if you want to read only the C-14 information, but you should also look at the introduction. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024