Dating Methods Controversy Discussion

My Dendrochronology Paper:Don Batten, Ph.D. :'Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments d (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.'Dendrochronology has been used in an attempts to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, have been dated by counting tree rings at 4,900 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has shown that variation of up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.Don Batten :'...evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.'Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the 'genus'.If you considering that the immediate post-Flood world, it would have been much wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age retreated, large quantities of extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines. Though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes. Taking this into account it is no wonder this would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.Though this may sound fairly reasonable, it is a circular reasoning process. It assumes that the approximately correct to linearly extimate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are very good reasons to doubt this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear estimation of te carbon clock will become, perhapsradically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere.Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).More information - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

I've listened to and read debates with evolutionists and creationists on the subject of Carbon Dating and other Dating methods and it seems as if the evolutionists don't like to get into that sort of converstion.

Varves are very debunkable, because it has one huge massive problem with it. And that is that it even has fossils in its layers. These layers are supposedly annual rings. But a problem with that is that we find beautifuly preserved fossils in its layers which simply should not be there at all. The animal would have rotted long before a single year could take place, or eaten by a predator.'During the early to mid-1970s enormous concentrations of Presbyornis [an extinct shorebird] have been discovered in the Green River Formation.' A. Feduccia, 'Presbyornis and the evolution of ducks and flamingos', American Scientist 66:299, 1978.Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.The Presbyornis fossils are even more problematic. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? 'Enormous concentrations' of bird bones are a clear indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. Instead, such fossils support the notion of rapid burial.Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988. Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick.A volcanic ash layer is an example of what geologists call an 'event horizon', because it is laid down essentially instantaneously by a single event, in this case a volcanic eruption. The two ash layers are separated by between 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers.If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by up to 35% from the basin centre to the basin margin! The investigators concluded that this was inconsistent with the idea of seasonal 'varve' deposition in a stagnant lake.So how were the great thicknesses of finely laminated shale in the Green River Formation laid down? Creationist geologists need to investigate the issue more closely, but there seems to be great potential for developing a catastrophic model for the origin of these sediments. There is a large body of experimental and observational data that shows that varve-like sediments can build up very rapidly under catastrophic conditions. For instance, in 1960 Hurricane Donna struck the coast of southern Florida and deposited a blanket of thinly-laminated lime-mud six inches thick. Another example comes from a Swiss lake, in which up to five pairs of layers were found to build up in a single year, deposited by rapid underflows of turbid water.Given the right conditions, thinly-laminated muddy sediments can and do form by rapid sedimentation. Contrary to claims by old-earth proponents, long periods of time are not demanded.

'cation leeching' I have never heard of this form of dating method, is there a spelling error? I did a search on some search engines for something on 'cation leeching' but didn't get any results. Fill me in on this dating method, I would like to discuss it.

In no case has C14 dating been shown to have more than 10% error max. The variables are known. In fact, due to cyclic variables of magnetism & solar cycles, going back in time from today the method gets more unreliable, peaks, then returns to nearly 100% accuracy before diverging again, this repeats itself. The rate of C12 to C14 production can be shown at any one time, extrapolating from todays known levels of solar radiation & magnetic strength.Theoretically, given the magnetic strengths are known in the recent past via other methods, & the sun has an 11 year cycle. Applying the method to C14 radiometric dating improves the accuracy.The purpose of including dendrochronology is to glean information as regards its range of error. This error can be extrapolated further back in time. Carbon dating is considered reliable up to about 40,000 years bp. less than 8 times its half life.Neverthess, =/- 10% at something dating 20,000 years old still debunks the bible.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
'cation leeching' I have never heard of this form of dating method, is there a spelling error? I did a search on some search engines for something on 'cation leeching' but didn't get any results. Fill me in on this dating method, I would like to discuss it.

---

I'll get back to you on this....work ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Really which debates and who?Most of your points are wonderfully vague you know, it would be a lot more convincing to say we burn fossil fuels which alters the ratio by (mechanism) to an extent of (quantitative statement of amount of change observed) which reduces the accuracy of C14 dating by X...Of course the fact that you do not state it in this manner is probably a fairly good indication that you either cannot or would be unable to provide a large enough difference to matter....The same can be said for the majority of your arguments...

About your magnetic field is decreasing is this what you meant?Barnes's magnetic field argument (1973) or some echo of it. Henry Morris, himself, once praised
it as one of the best arguments for a young earth.In 1971 Barnes took about 25 measurements of the earth's magnetic field strength (originally assembled by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst
(1967)) and fitted them to an exponential decay curve. He drew upon Sir Horace Lamb's 1883 paper as theoretical justification for this. Following
the curve backwards in time, Barnes showed that 20,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly high. Thus, he concluded
that the earth is much younger than 20,000 years.If so here is a paper on why it is not so... Enjoy... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

Here is a good article about radiometric dating. It is not only scientifically-sound, it is "from a Christian perspective". http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/Wiens.htmlAlso, you do realize that the idea of a worldwide flood and that the Earth is young was rejected by Creationist scientists almost 200 years ago, well before Darwin's book.Rev. Adam Sedgwick, also a Geologist before science was professionalized, was a strong proponent of Flood geology, but had to change his views after seeing that the evidence in nature did not support this view. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htmThis modern religious movement to try to ascribe scientific merit to a Bible story is just that; a religious movement and it does not stand up to scientific inquiry.You are welcome to believe that a flood happened, of course, but just don't pretend that science supports it.

The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
[K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, "An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965," ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, 1965, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14.]The Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Would you be willing to present anything that would disprove its feasibility or its in-fact happening? That is why Im doing this forum, not to show everyone I believe this but because It is a good discussion to discuss the evidence, not to say well I believe something.
If you haven't already guessed it, lots of things have changed since before and during Darwins time. And I agree that even today there are Biblical creationists that believe in a 'gap theory' a Blacksea local flood, and an old earth and all. But that is not biblically sound, they just believe that and promote it so that it is easier, and I admit if i had the same ideas It would be 100 times easier for me, but I believe what I believe because that is what I see the evidence points to.

Let's start with the foundation that relative dating and absolute dating (all of them not just radiomtric dating) match so well. This would seem to be the best confirmation that both tecniques are accurate--after all, what would affect both of them equally other than the passage of time? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.htmlWhat other mechanism would provide this correlation?Cheers,
LarryCheers,
Larry

ROTFL---and so how does this affect other calculations by other methods? Remember, all of the methods corroborate each other---now how does this happen if the mechanism you are identifying only affects one or a few methods? Very curious?

ok let us start with the foundation of relative dating and absolute dating techniques, I will agree with you that dates always match very well, but only the published dates, There have been numerous occasions of dates way out of the ballpark for evolutionists. So what dating method would you like to start with? Patassium Argon, Carbon14, Varves, dendrochronology, etc. Lets start lower and work our way up instead of rushing into saying that they all corroborate each other. Lets discuss the evidence, and exchange ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Varves are very debunkable, because it has one huge massive problem with it. And that is that it even has fossils in its layers. These layers are supposedly annual rings. But a problem with that is that we find beautifuly preserved fossils in its layers which simply should not be there at all. The animal would have rotted long before a single year could take place, or eaten by a predator.

​

'During the early to mid-1970s enormous concentrations of Presbyornis [an extinct shorebird] have been discovered in the Green River Formation.' A. Feduccia, 'Presbyornis and the evolution of ducks and flamingos', American Scientist 66:299, 1978.

​

Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.

​

The Presbyornis fossils are even more problematic. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? 'Enormous concentrations' of bird bones are a clear indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. Instead, such fossils support the notion of rapid burial.

​

Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988. Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick.

​

A volcanic ash layer is an example of what geologists call an 'event horizon', because it is laid down essentially instantaneously by a single event, in this case a volcanic eruption. The two ash layers are separated by between 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers.

​

If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.

​

However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by up to 35% from the basin centre to the basin margin! The investigators concluded that this was inconsistent with the idea of seasonal 'varve' deposition in a stagnant lake.

​

So how were the great thicknesses of finely laminated shale in the Green River Formation laid down? Creationist geologists need to investigate the issue more closely, but there seems to be great potential for developing a catastrophic model for the origin of these sediments. There is a large body of experimental and observational data that shows that varve-like sediments can build up very rapidly under catastrophic conditions. For instance, in 1960 Hurricane Donna struck the coast of southern Florida and deposited a blanket of thinly-laminated lime-mud six inches thick. Another example comes from a Swiss lake, in which up to five pairs of layers were found to build up in a single year, deposited by rapid underflows of turbid water.

​

---

If you have a football that is in your back garden & it snows once a day for 14 days, then the ball straddles 14 layers.It's not about anaerobic decay. Its about what other conditions exist in the hypolimnion, such as high CO2, & H2S concs, alongside low free O2. In the experiments you quote, if cages were required, then H2S & CO2 levels weren't high to negate scavengers. Were gas levels measured?According to Whitcomb & Morris, the Green River formation aren't varves anyway.Going onto a topic that really belongs in your flood thread....Strahler points out of the (5-8 million layers consisting 2 couplets each)laminate deposits in the Green River formation....."If 2 turbidity currents are required for each couplet, the flood version calls for 10 to 16 million separate currents, one following the other within a small fraction of a year. Suppose we allow 100 days for the total deposition, consisting of 10 million turbidity currents. This comes out to roughly 1 event /sec. One second must see a turbidity current spread over an area of several thousand sq miles. The turbidity current would need to traverse a surface distance of not less than 100 km/s (360,000 km/h) (A.N. Strahler)RJ Schadewald calculates 1 event/ 1.5 secs."(Both in response to Whitcomb & Morris. When this was put to Morris during a live debate in Tampa, Florida, he declined to answer.)It is a fossiliferous deposit, so it MUST have been laid down in the flood.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001]