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

The debate has begun, and, as we usually have a thread to comment on the posts, I propose these guidelines:

1. Great Debate participants -- Coyote and Mindspawn -- should not post comments here, they have the GD thread for making their case.
2. Participants here should limit their comments to the contents of the posts on the GD thread.

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : update title

in Message 3 mindspawn claims: Curiously, the comments by Dr. Henri D. Grissino-Mayer quoted refer to why growth rings have varying widths:

quote:

---

The Principle of Limiting Factors

​

​

As used in dendrochronology, this principle states that rates of plant processes are constrained by the primary environmental variable(s) that is most limiting. ...

---

The variation in ring width is a separate issue from the occurrence of growth rings in ecologies with very distinct annual changes, such as winter and summer on top of the Sierra Nevada mountains, or where deciduous trees have leaves that die in an annual cycle, such as the Oaks in Ireland and Germany.This, of course, is also why certain species and growth areas are selected over others when a dendrochronology system is determined for providing age data.In addition Mindspawn fails to go on and quote Dr. Henri D. Grissino-Mayer on how the problems he points out are dealt with in making a good dendrochronology.http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm#3

quote:

---

The Principle of Aggregate Tree Growth

​

This principle states that any individual tree-growth series can be "decomposed" into an aggregate of environmental factors, both human and natural, that affected the patterns of tree growth over time. For example, tree-ring growth (R) in any one year (indicated by a small "t", where t could be "1" for year 1, and "2" for year 2, etc.) is a function of an aggregate of factors:

​

​

1. the age related growth trend (A) due to normal physiological aging processes
2. the climate (C) that occurred during that year
3. the occurrence of disturbance factors within the forest stand (for example, a blow down of trees), indicated by D1,
4. the occurrence of disturbance factors from outside the forest stand (for example, an insect outbreak that defoliates the trees, causing growth reduction), indicated by D2, and
5. random (error) processes (E) not accounted for by these other processes

​

The Principle of Site Selection

​

... This principle states that sites useful to dendrochronology can be identified and selected based on criteria that will produce tree-ring series sensitive to the environmental variable being examined. ...

---

There is more on how cross-dating, replication and other methods are used to generate a good dendrochronology.The conditions cited for poor growth ring data do not apply, for instance, to the Bristle-cone Pine high in the Sierra Nevada mountains, nor to the deciduous Oak trees in Ireland and Germany.The problem for mindspawn is that he doesn't have to just question the accuracy, but he needs to show that the dendrochronologies are in fact inaccurate.Given that the Bristle-cone Pine dendrochronology from Sierra Nevada, the Oak dendrochronology from Ireland, and the Oak dendrochronology from Germany agree within 0,5% over 8,000 years of record, what mindspawn needs to demonstrate what specific type of events could affect each dendrochronology in exactly the same way in spite of them being in 3 diverse locations in the world and two different types of trees (one pine -evergreen- and the other oak -deciduous), and two significantly different ecologies.It is the correlations that show that the chronologies are accurate.Edited by RAZD, : finishingEdited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : full name

Thread copied here from the Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Further information on how Creationists tend to misuse information is found here: Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud, Message 1.Purposefully selecting a tree species and ecology that are known to have false rings does not prove dendrochronology wrong -- to do that the creationist needs to show that the conditions for false rings actually pertain to the trees used in the specific dendrochronology and document when they occurred.When Dr Grissino says ...http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm#3

quote:

---

... Therefore, to maximize the desired environmental signal being studied, the other factors should be minimized. For example, to maximize the climate signal, the age related trend should be removed, and trees and sites selected to minimize the possibility of internal and external ecological processes affecting tree growth.

---

... he is saying that different trees and ecological sites can be chosen to suit different studies, age in one case, climate in another ...... and -- in the case of "Dr" Batton -- misusing one for the other will result in known problems, and when those known problems are not corrected, this creates misinformation and fraud rather than honest scientific criticism.Enjoy

In Message 4 of the Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD Coyote responds with:

quote:

---

The idea of a calibration using tree rings or these other materials is to correct for atmospheric fluctuations in the levels of C14. So, let's not correct for atmospheric fluctuations (even though creationists are constantly telling us we have to make such corrections). What do we get without these corrections?

​

During the past 10,000 or so years the uncalibrated ages are off by about 10% at the most extreme. The error gets a little larger up around 30,000 years ago. This shows quite clearly on the calibration curve.

​

The calibration curve has been posted here many times, ...

​

What this shows is that even if we totally ignore the tree rings and other methods of establishing atmospheric fluctuations, and do no calibration, we still get old dates ...

---

What Coyote is saying is that even without calibration there is a correlation between actual age and the age calculated from measured C14 levels based on the exponential decay curve for C14.The issue is correlations, whether the source data is tree rings, lake varves, coral, etc.One of the questions that should be asked by anyone skeptical of dendrochronology is whether there are any other correlations than C14 age that talk to the accuracy of the dendrochronology.The answer, not too surprisingly, is yes. In Message 4 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 -- after showing that the error found between three separate dendrochronologies was only 37 years in 8,000 years of record (a little under 0.5% error) -- we see the introduction of C14 to the dendrochronology discussion.Because C14 is radioactive and decays along an exponential curve, it would take some real effort on the part of creationists to explain how low levels of C14/C12 could occur without age, but the kicker is not the decay age calculation itself, but how C14 is produced in the atmosphere:

quote:

---

Message 4 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)

​

quote:

---

Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

---

​

Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.

---

Coyote showed a calibration curve to demonstrate how C14/C12 ratios correlate with age based on a variety of sources including, but not limited to, tree rings. The kicker is in those jagged teeth in the curve. As noted above C14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment from the sun, and this varies over an 11 year cycle:

quote:

---

Message 92 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: ... but there is another cycle that is of even more interest in terms of correlations:

​

quote:

---

Solar cycle - Wikipedia

​

The solar cycle (or solar magnetic activity cycle) has a period of about 11 years. The cycle is observed by counting the frequency and placement of sunspots visible on the Sun. Solar variation causes changes in space weather and to some degree weather and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

---

​

This results in a similar cycle pattern in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and is one of the reasons that C14 does not reach an equilibrium point in the atmosphere (another creationist pratt down the tubes ... ).

​

You can see this pattern in the calibration curves, causing the fine saw-tooth pattern:

​

​

There are other known period cycles that also have a similar effect, but the point of interest for the correlations, is that this is like a ticking clock with a fixed period of each tick, and they continue throughout the whole curve.

---

This is a basic mechanism in the sun, an independent correlation that validates the ages.Enjoy

Coyote pretty much just performed a first round knockout.I find it absolutely fascinating that people can still dispute this sort of thing. Radioactive decay rates are a completely well understood phenomenon. It is a consequence of the weak interaction and is a mechanism that has been powering our nuclear reactors since the early part of the 20th century. What is it about Carbon 14 decay rates that gets their panties in a bunch?And even if the Carbon dating wasn't quite as reliable, what about all the other radioactive dating methods like potassium argon? Are they ALL wrong?

Yeah, that's the idea, they are all wrong by a factor of about a million maximum (4500 CE = 253 Mya conventional, 300 CE = 300 CE conventional). Impossible for many reasons but it doesn't matter to mindspawn..Most of us have seen his type many times. Coyote's going to tear him a new one. And he may give ground on a point or two, but he'll continue to believe his fantasy. For him, by definition mainstream science is wrong. He's curious about why it's wrong but for him there's absolutely no possibility it's correct. No matter what evidence is presented.

We'll see. It's not easy for people with firmly held beliefs to accept when they are falsified. This is one way to deal with cognitive dissonance: ignore other information that is dangerous to your beliefs. Midspawn has consistently ignored the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 even though he has been invited there on several occasions. Another method of dealing with cognitive dissonance is to try to discredit the information that conflicts with your cherished beliefs.This comment is, of course, a false claim, but one you commonly see on creationist websites.The curve shown has dates derived from C14/C12 ratio measurements on one axis and dates derived from other methods on the other axis.

quote:

---

Message 4 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

​

404 Page not found (9)

​

quote:

---

---

---

In this case tree rings on one axis, C14 age calculations on the other axis.

quote:

---

Message 5 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: In the case of the Lake Suigetsu Lake Varves they present a calibration curve as well, and we can use this to represent the Carbon-14 environment in the same way we did for the tree-rings - as an indicator of what the levels of Carbon-14 were when the organic samples were alive and growing.

​

Just a moment... (3)

​

quote:

---

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

---

---

In this case lake varves (blue) on one axis, C14 age calculations on the other axis (and also showing tree rings (green) on the first axis with C14 age calculations on the other as above).Obviously counting layers and counting tree rings is not using C14 to find the dates of the layers and rings, this is not circular reasoning at all. Really? Occurring in exactly the same pattern in three different locations on earth: Sierra Nevada mountains, Ireland and Germany ... ? Remember there are three dendrochronologies that agree ring by ring over a period of 8,000 years with an error of only 37 rings\years -- an error rate of less than 0.5%. Again, it does not matter how many diatom mass deaths occur in a year or how much the river flow changes, as this does not affect the layer formation. There could be 50 mass deaths in one summer and there would be one diatom layer for the year. There could be 50 storms and it wouldn't affect the winter layer formed by clay sediment.This is because the diatoms settle fast -- within a day of death -- while the clay settles slowly taking months to form a layer only when there are no further diatom deaths: only the winter months provide the time necessary to form a clay layer.We also see from this graph:

quote:

---

Message 21 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the ¹⁴C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.

​

A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

quote:

---

RESULTS

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and ¹⁴C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The ¹⁴C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

---

​

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.

---

At about 11,000 years ago there was a change in the deposition rate in the lake, and this did not affect the counting of the layers.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added comments

Mindspawn's reply indicates he either doesn't understand the graph, or he thinks that lake varves around the world all experience the same number of extra varve layers every year, and that ¹⁴C dating is also off by an identical amount so that it agrees with all the lake varves.The graph *does* indicate about 1.2 varve layers per year on average.--Percy

What? Source please.

I don't think such a thing is possible. I think he has forgone an opportunity to kick the spring tide theory squarely into the trash can.But then it does matter what you consider winning. In a Great Debate I think the minimal achievement is to get your opponent to acknowledge he has a weak argument. It appears to me that Coyote is simply inviting mindspawn to postulate silly scenarios about radiometric dating.All dating methods have attack points, and the C-14 attack points are more accessible to the novice than are those of other methods. It is the agreement with non-radiometric dating methods and other dating methods that closes out all of the what ifs.If Mindspawn thinks that there are spring tides of salt water in that lake, he ought to be made to provide some evidence.The real obstacle is this debate is that mindspawn will not hold up his end. He is not going to show the math (or the evidence) that demonstrates that he any scenario he proposes actually happened. He believes that expressing personal doubt is sufficient for him, but not for his opponent.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If I understand your comment, I think you are saying that that the graph indicates that relation between C-14 years and varve years. The assumption is that varve years correspond more closely than C-14 years to actual years.And perhaps that is the source of mindspawn's error. He must think that actual dates are one of the axes on the graphs.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And therein lies the major issue as it pertains to any debate with Creationists or religious apologists. In the end, the debate becomes entirely one-sided. Those of us in the science camp have this inherent need to make sense. We provide data to corroborate our views and in response, we either get denial or outright fabrications of information as a response.I have yet to see any debate of this nature where the creationist actually produced proper, peer reviewed information that was not in any way outright fabricated or based on incorrect assertions. Many of them get their data from Conservapedia or the many lectures of convicted fraudster Kent Hovind or his idiot son, much of which is either woefully skewed or downright wrong.

I misread the graph Coyote used: I thought the y-axis was "calibrated" radiocarbon years.Never mind.But that was just a side comment. My first point still holds, that Mindspawn either misunderstands the graph in some significant way, or believes in coincidences with probabilities indistinguishable from zero.--Percy

We've seen the occasional Creationist poster do much better than that on some topics. I though the Creationist debating whale evolution (Adam something or other?) did a good job of holding up his end.