Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Nothing like reading the article linked to actually finding out information rather than blowing smoke eh? That is over 100 feet deep, too deep to be stirred up by storms, as wave termoil does not penetrate that far.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and Answers to these questions are in the article. If you read it you would see that (1) the lake is "kettle" shaped so your flux of sediment back and forth along the bottom would only affect the shallow edges and drop off with depth towards the center, and (2) that a total of 5 cores were taken from the middle of the lake, only one extending down to a level estimated to have been laid down 100,000 years ago. The five all agree on dates down to 20,000 years ago -- they correlate with each other to that point. (that's a 5% error at 40,000 years)Reading the article will also show you other correlations with the data from the lake ("European sediments (5,6)" and "marine calibrations (7-9)"), the major correlations being the major climate trends, like the Younger Dryas and Oldest Dryas glaciations, and the Allerd/Blling warm period, over and above the minor annual ones.Any explanation of possible sources of errors in counting the layers has to explain how these correlations can occur in exactly these patterns.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I suggest that you read the article and if that does not satisfy you, that you do a google on the topic.what I suspect is that your "bubble filter" is in full operation and the article information is being rejected.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

whatever --correlations
correlations
correlations
correlationscorrelations to dendrochronology in Europe and California
correlations to C-14correlations to ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica
correlations to calcite layers in devils holeWhatever mechanism you dream up to add extra varve layers must also show why the climate data correlates with all the other mechanisms -- how can they all be affected to show the same results, particularly as they use different mechanisms to measure \ document the ages in question.Until you provide a mechanism to do that this, your concepts are just feeble mind games to no purpose -- 'feeble' because they don't answer the questions of the correlations, questions that must be answered to be a valid concept, and 'mind games' because they have no scientific basis.Correlations not only involve major climate changes in the distant past that have already been talked about (the Younger Dryas, the Oldest Dryas and the Allerd/Blling period), but ones within the historical record -- the "year without a summer" (1815), the "little ice age" (~1350 to 1450 CE) and the "medieval warm period" (800-1200 CE) -- correlations that also show up in the ice core data, (along with specific volcanic eruptions of historical record as well -- see core data correlations here).Correlations that show the annual layers are matching the historical records for the years in question, which should be enough to take care of your complaint about an actual study of actual depositions -- for there is no chance that they would correlate with those known dates otherwise.As a final comment on correlations, notice the wikipedia article on the Youner Dryas states: (see article for reference information)Notice how all those different systems correlate to the same period with their margins of error. Notice that there are methods not even discussed in the original article, additional methods outside the ones listed that also correlate with the same data.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

whatever --you need to explain (1) how any stirring of the sediments can then result in multiple layers of diatoms and clay rather than a jumbled mass mixture of both and (2) how such a system could then correlate with the known climate information of events in history.The fact that the dates from the varve layers correlate with the known historical climate means they are annual layers regardless of whether the actual accumulation on that lake has been specifically tested. There is not "god of the gaps" argument here -- the correlations prove the annual layers are in fact annual.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Then this model obviously would not apply to the ice cores as the ice would have floated if it existed pre-flood, nor could such a lens mechanism have deposited multiple layers on top of the ice.The climate data from the lake matches the climate data from the ice cores -- how can that happen? Nor could it have happened inside a cave as the cave would have filled up but not been stirred into any multiple layer possible model. From A DEVILS HOLE PRIMER (click for full article): (italics in the original)The climate data from the lake matches the climate data from the cave -- how can that happen? andThe climate data from the ice cores match the climate data from the cave -- how can that happen? I don't need to assume that Walt is correct because it does not explain the other correlations for both age from the layers or for the climate matches in each system, and that makes it an invalid explanation.The flat {fish \ fossil} is also a bogus straw-man argument: show how it can only occur with a noachin model but not any other method? And how do you then explain fossils that are not flat?BTW, I thought you were the one arguing that only those species put in the ark were killed by the flood outside while 90% of the earth's creatures survived by swimming or floating on debris -- certainly that fish survived ... have you changed your story here?http://EvC Forum: Fresh Problem with the Ark

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ahhhh the old soft shoe shuffle shovel approach ...All of that {?word association?} {?repetition of jargonese?} does not explain the correlations. see http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old EarthNor do you explain how you get alternating organic diatom layers and inorganic {silt \ clay} layers when you have just stirred them together. How do you get thousands of alternating layers from particles that settle out at different rates from suspension in water? How do you do that in a manner that matches the C-14 testing of organics in those layers and the climate data from other sources -- how do you differentially sort matter by C-14 content in one settling system? The weight difference from decay is immeasurably miniscule compared to the differences between diatoms and clay.Why do these very different mechanisms show the same climate trends on both a micro (annual) basis and a macro (geological ages) basis? Why do they correlate so well with each other and known historical events -- volcanic eruptions recorded in early history well before the zero calendar date (or lack thereof) -- showing the correlations of the annual layers are consistent back to those known events? How then do you explain the correlation between the antarctic ice cores and the greenland ice cores?The wikipedia article on the younger dryas dating did not state the dates were set in stone, but did show that the margins of error all overlapped for the FIVE different methods cited. How do you explain that correlation?Your problem with the cave is different -- the calcite layers do not form under water. They are formed by a slow flow of mineral saturated water over a surface, allowing the minerals to come out of solution and deposit on top of the previous layer. This leaves you two possiblities: (1) the layers existed long before the "flood" and the correlation with the climate data for the ice cores show they too must be pre"flood" formations (and your problem with extreme age compared to YEC model remains) or (2) the layers were created after the "flood" by a mechanism that completely mimics both the annual layers (complete with two different radiometric dating correlations) AND climate data formed by the other systems. Only by steadfastly ignoring the correlations and other evidence of consistency through the mechanism of an active bubble filter.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Still does not explain the correlations ... (yawnnn)That you even consider Snelling's mineralized wood sample C-14 data as valid means you are not understanding the proper methodology of the testing. Any minerals in the wood is evidence of contamination of the sample. Carbon-14 is NOT done on samples in the process of fossilization (eg -- where minerals have replaced the original material) but on organic samples. Obviously if minerals are leaching into the wood they are replacing sample matter with foreign substances that will muck up the result.Note that real scientists normally use at least two different methods to arrive at dates for an object to ensure that there is not something throwing a monkey wrench in the works, and when they find discrepancies they look for the cause. Again -- read Dr. WeinsA real scientist would look at the sample and say "It has foreign matter in it, the C-14 data is invalid" while a creatortioinista would look at the sample and say "It has foreign matter in it, so it will give a bogus date that I can use to throw invalid suspicion on the testing method for gullible people."The age of the samples in the lake in no way means that Snelling is any more valid than before as they are in the valid range for organic objects to be properly dated by C-14.and you still have those correlation problems ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

duplicate post deleted by edit. system hung up on the original send and had not shown when I sent the second.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-12-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

There is no "factoring in" of correlations in this matter ... for you have yet to explain one (1) correlation from one dating system to another.There are reasons that C-14 is invalid for coal and oil ... and again I touch on the difference between a scientist and a creatortionista: when there is an anomaly in the data the scientist will look for the cause, the creatortionista will say "the system's flawed and can't be relied on" hoping fervently that people won't turn to the scientist and ask {why?}.I did a google on {carbon 14 coal} and found this article by Kathleen Hunt
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits: (carbon 14 notation changed to "C-14" in the material quoted for consistency)There is more, and anyone who is really interested in understanding this matter should read the whole articleLets see ...
Fossil Wood C-14: invalid dating due to mineral contamination
Coal C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Oil C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Correlations: not answeredBalls in your court ... still.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

good point -- a sufficiently large sampling of pieces should turn up an anomaly or two ...and it is somehow okay for those ages from the testing even though they are 8 to 10 times the YEC age of the earth ... how is that?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Plant material is nitrogen fixing, and would have lots of nitrogen in the original matter, plus the decay process for Carbon-14 is that one of its neutrons spontaneously breaks down into a proton, and electron (beta particle) and an electron antineutrino. This is known as Beta Minus decay: (image source from Jefferson Lab website - Glossary Term - Beta Decay)So there would be an abundance of Nitrogen in the samples that could be turned into C-14 with the right impetus.Also from Jefferson Lab website (It's Elemental - The Element Thorium) the isotopes of Thorium decay by alpha decay (2 protons + 2 neutrons), Beta Minus decay (see above), electron capture, spontaneous fission and some other curious methods.Under the right conditions ... N-14 plus Beta Minus Decay = C-14Note again the word you seem to be having the most trouble with: correlation.Again, from the article by Kathleen Hunt (Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits): (bold mine for emphasis)Perhaps the problem is understanding the word correlation. From dictionsary.com: I repeat ...
Fossil Wood C-14: invalid dating due to mineral contamination
Coal C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Oil C-14: invalid dating due to radioactive C-14 generation
Correlations: not answered
Balls in your court ... still.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What the data is showing is that anomalous C-14 dates correlate with radioactivity, not depth, not proportional to age. All that it shows is that anomalous C-14 dates for coal and oil are caused by radiation. I suspect that there will be (if there have not already been) actual experiments by scientists to determine the rates involved, and going back to the article by Hunt again: (carbon 14 reference changed to C-14 again for consistency, the abstracts are listed in the Hunt article, the number shown here as 1e-22 was changed from the original format in the article of "10 to the power -22")Note that the scientists are concerned with determining why the anomalies are present, and this would be like someone in your position being concerned with why all the different methods correlate to each other on an annual basis and on a major climate trend basis.Also note that the anomalous levels detected are near the limits of current methods at a point where very little additional C-14 would cause a major anomaly in dating of very old specimens -- if there is a constant background radiation induced level of C-14 it will show up in all specimens to different degrees. The formula for radioactive decay used for carbon-14 dating is: where t is the calculated age, 5730 is the half-life of C-14, ln is the natural logarithm function, and Nf/No is the ratio of C-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue.Basic math allows us to calculate that a dating shift from 300 million years ago to 40,000 years ago would require addition or conversion of 0.8% of the regular carbon to C-14, whereas a similar amount of additional C-14 in, say, a 3000 year old (historical) specimen would result in a shift of only 3.1% (younger) in dating because of the exponential formulas involved. If the specimen being measured is actually 40,000 years old and it has the additional radiation induced C-14 levels (ie double the C-14 it should have) the age error is 14.3% younger. Thus this effect is only significant for very old specimens, particularly those beyond the valid dating range (such as those specimens used by creatortionistas).Note finally that there were no anomalies with the Lake Suigetsu specimens. The cores go to such depths of alternating sediments that there is no possibility of radiation induced anomalies, ergo the dates derived from C-14 are accurate, as are the layers counted to match the C-14 dates and the correlations of them to the other dating methods for both age and climate patterns.I have correlations, you don't.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thank you for the actual Brown link. I love the graph with the notation: This statement alone shows the Brown is engaging in bogus science, as there would also be a proportional "dilution" of normal carbon by the same mechanism, and the ratio would be unchanged -- and the item of interest is the ratio ... the man is lying and smiling while he does so.Another way to present the correlation dilemma for whatever to consider:Let us suppose that the recorded patterns of temperature and precipitation for this year are measured by three different machines in a field using totally different systems to measure them ... how do you explain the matching of results without the actual weather patterns being present? We are talking that level of correlation of climate and age for the various systems to independently arrive at the same data, and not for one year but thousands of years.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

marine C-14 is usually considered unreliable due to resevoir problems -- too much old carbon available

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}