Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:35 PM
29 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, edge, jar, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, Taq (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 126 (546715)
02-13-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by anglagard
02-13-2010 1:19 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Don't forget annual calcite accumulation in caves, annual layers in ice sheets, and annual isotope differentiation in confined aquifers and ....

But I'm not so sure about those. The thing about the varves in proglacial lakes is that since they contain organic material we can show a correlation between the age we get by counting varves and the age we get by carbon dating.

I don't know how we'd go about showing a correlation between the things you've mentioned and carbon dating or dendrochronology or deposition of varves.

They might suggest an old(er than creationists admit) Earth, but unless you know something I don't, they don't make the specific point I was trying to make, which is that anything screwing with dating methods would have to screw with radioactive decay and the growth of trees and the deposition of sediments in such a way that, by some enormous fluke, although they're all wrong, they all still agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:19 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 6:09 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 77 of 126 (546724)
02-13-2010 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2010 3:40 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Dr Adequate writes:

I don't know how we'd go about showing a correlation between the things you've mentioned and carbon dating or dendrochronology or deposition of varves.

They might suggest an old(er than creationists admit) Earth, but unless you know something I don't, they don't make the specific point I was trying to make, which is that anything screwing with dating methods would have to screw with radioactive decay and the growth of trees and the deposition of sediments in such a way that, by some enormous fluke, although they're all wrong, they all still agree.

Admittedly, I am painting a broader brush than any immediate year-to-year correlation between tree rings, varves, and the relationship between C12/C13/C14. What I am looking at is the correlation between climate as inferred from O16/O17/O18 ratios, often related to volcanic events, to the results from dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating.

Further elaboration, while needed to properly explain, must await a bit of time as it will result in a RAZD-sized post.

Edited by anglagard, : format


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 3:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 6:34 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 126 (546726)
02-13-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by anglagard
02-13-2010 6:09 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Admittedly, I am painting a broader brush than any immediate year-to-year correlation between tree rings, varves, and the relationship between C12/C13/C14. What I am looking at is the correlation between climate as inferred from O16/O17/O18 ratios, often related to volcanic events, to the results from dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating.

Ah, I think I see your point. If we can see something being produced annually, and it contains evidence as to the climate, then we can indeed demonstrate a correlation with dendrochronology. If (for example) layers of ice, when dated according to counting one layer per year, show the same climatological evidence as counting tree rings, then there is indeed a correlation. Why, short of another amazing coincidence, should they both show the same year as being particularly hot or cold unless they're keeping accurate time?

Further elaboration, while needed to properly explain, must await a bit of time as it will result in a RAZD-sized post.

I await it with interest.

Shouldn't all this be on another thread?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 6:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 79 of 126 (546735)
02-13-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2010 12:39 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Dr. Adequate,

Now, here's the thing. The sediment in these lakes contains organic material, such as pollen. So we can carbon-date each varve as well as dating it just by counting. And guess what, the two methods are once again in good agreement.

Not only that, the pollen data gives information about the climate, and the long term trends between warmer and colder years. This information also appears in the size of the tree rings, so there is another correlation. Why would both methods record "fat" summers and 14C levels the same?

Now, radioactive decay and tree growth are two separate processes, of course, so there's no reason why they should both be put wrong in such a way as to still agree with one another.

Now, varve deposition and tree growth are two separate processes, of course, so there's no reason why they should both be put wrong in such a way as to still agree with one another.

So now we need another magical process, or the same one again, to screw with sedimentary deposition in glacial lakes in such a way as to keep it in lock-step with the way that tree-ring growth has been screwed with, which is in lock-step with the way that radioactive decay has been screwed with.

And to produce the same climatic correlation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : spling


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 12:39 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 126 (546740)
02-13-2010 9:16 AM


Thanks to all recent respondents, especially Dr. Adequate. as I chew on the plate full. Off to Sabbath (7th Day) School and church this AM, in honor of Jehovah's rest (as per Lot2), resting from the 6 days of work, effecting a tad of equilibrium relative to the creator and the created, etc. Have a good'n, all.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 81 of 126 (546742)
02-13-2010 10:13 AM


Moderator Warning
If thread participants insist on engaging in productive evidence-based discussions then I might be forced to move this thread to one of the science forums!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 8:08 PM Admin has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 126 (546783)
02-13-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Admin
02-13-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Moderator Warning
Hi Admin. You did'nt say no replies so I'll say it:

That prospect makes me very nervous.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Admin, posted 02-13-2010 10:13 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Admin, posted 02-13-2010 9:20 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 83 of 126 (546788)
02-13-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
Don't worry, I won't spoil the fun, but I did want to endorse the last couple pages of posts.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 8:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 84 of 126 (546789)
02-13-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote
02-12-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Coyote.

What you are trying to argue is that trees absorbed carbon differently pre-flood vs. post-flood.

And what's funny about that is that even if they did absorb C14 differently before the flud, after the flud they'd be dead, thus unable to absorb much at all.

Just sayin'.

buzsaw writes:

...(as Bus sips his glass of cheap nevertheless good upstate NY red wine).

Like they say, Buz, the best wine is the wine you like to drink.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2010 9:58 PM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Apothecus has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 126 (546796)
02-13-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Apothecus
02-13-2010 9:20 PM


Re: Dating dirt
And what's funny about that is that even if they did absorb C14 differently before the flud, after the flud they'd be dead, thus unable to absorb much at all.

Well, now, that is a problem isn't it?

But the thing is, we have all these trees which we can date by overlapping tree rings sequences. And we can carve out those individual rings and radiocarbon date those too. And the dates all agree within about 10%. Most are much closer.

And those tree ring sequences go back 12,500+ years! Way earlier than biblical scholars place the flood.

Yup, its a problem all right. But not for science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Apothecus, posted 02-13-2010 9:20 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 126 (546799)
02-13-2010 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Apothecus
02-13-2010 9:20 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Apothecus writes:

And what's funny about that is that even if they did absorb C14 differently before the flud, after the flud they'd be dead, thus unable to absorb much at all.

Hi Apothecus.

After reading this the ole man's mind's been mentaly immersed in more musings.

CONCLUSIONS.......
Present knowledge of the mechanisms and adaptations of the trees of Amazonian floodplain forests which allow them to survive the extreme conditions of waterlogging and especially of complete submergence in darkness is still fragmentary. The present review describes some adaptive reactions of trees and their seedlings in the field and in more controlled experimental conditions, but few answers can yet be given to questions of how these reactions are brought about. Little is known concerning the organs such as roots or leaves that are formed under water, although from what we know from temperate species the morphology and anatomy of these may be significantly different from those developed in air (Mommer et al., 2006, 2007). A major challenge is to explain how the plants maintain seemingly healthy leaves below water for weeks or months and retain a functional photosynthetic apparatus.

If the Buz/Bible flood and preflood canopy hypothesis was correct, the low C14, high oxygen world where men lived centuries (and likely some animals such as dinos, etc) most likely the trees would have benefited by the ecosystem as well. The atmospheric H2O, having relatively little C14 and more oxygen, when condensed, falling to earth, perhaps resulted in a relatively high oxygen, relatively low salt consistency. Thus two (perhaps) factors relative to dendrochronology.

1) More robust, healthier, and hardier plant life, including trees.

2) More oxygenated seas which covered all trees which were not structurally destroyed in the flood for the duration of the submersion.

Perhaps this would have allowed most of the super-hardy trees, especially the younger ones and saplings to survive the lengthy submerged state which the flood effected. If this were the case tree ring continuity would not have been abruptly interrupted and the pre-flood trees being low 14C they would date older than indicated.

Perhaps, like men, etc, the life span and hardiness of trees began (I say began) to deterioriate after the waters abated.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Apothecus, posted 02-13-2010 9:20 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2010 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 89 by lyx2no, posted 02-13-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 90 by Apothecus, posted 02-14-2010 10:34 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 126 (546800)
02-13-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Thus two (perhaps) factors relative to dendrochronology.

1) More robust, healthier, and hardier plant life, including trees.

...

Perhaps, like men, etc, the life span and hardiness of trees began (I say began) to deterioriate after the waters abated.

But it's not about the life span of trees, just about the fact that they produce one ring a year.

What you need is a way to mess with this in such a way that it agrees with carbon dating, which you also need to mess with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 88 of 126 (546801)
02-13-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Uh, no.

Just no!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2889 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 89 of 126 (546806)
02-13-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
After reading this the ole man's mind's been mentaly immersed in more musings.

After reading this the young man's mind's prone to agree with you. 'cept I didn't read it.

quote:
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth except trees and junk and stuff.

If the Buz/Bible flood and preflood canopy hypothesis was correct, the low C14, high oxygen world where men lived centuries (and likely some animals such as dinos, etc) most likely the trees would have benefited by the ecosystem as well.

Trees don't like high levels of O2. It causes them to work harder to dump their waste O2. It also cause them to burst into flames, which Smoky for one thinks is somehow bad for them.

If this were the case tree ring continuity would not have been abruptly interrupted and the pre-flood trees being low 14C they would date older than indicated.

We have actual trees that span the gap, Buz. We can carbon date tree rings one at a time. It wouldn't go unnoticed if forests didn't seem to produce any rings for a few millennia. 4,348*… 4,349… 4,350… 12,500… — spit take.

*Carbon years.

AbE: And before I get corrected I know that we can't carbon date a ring to the year 4,348. But ±150's all over tarnation wouldn't be pretty, now would it?

Edited by lyx2no, : Fix my prose and add a note.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2010 11:45 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 90 of 126 (546851)
02-14-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Buz.

... and the pre-flood trees being low 14C they would date older than indicated.

But we don't see considerably less C14 prior to the date specified for the biblical flood (or any of the other various flood stories). As stated ealier, there is a difference, but one that is accounted for via calibration.

What I do find interesting, though, is not necessarily all the different correlations that soundly refute your position, Buz. Young earth creationists often crow about the fact that the acceptance of carbon dating requires "assumptions" due to the fact that no one was around a half life of C14 ago to be able to quantitatively test this.

But, see, it's kinda like we were. How? Well, looking back at the bristlecone pines (or the European Oaks, etc...) we can use instruments to measure (not date, Buz, measure) how much C14 is in any one tree ring. Then (get this), we count 5730 (appr.) rings back in time (which may require more than one tree) and guess what? If you measure (not date) the amount of C14 in this ring (5730 years ago), we get....surprise!....half the amount of C14. Wow! What another amazing coincidence! No assumptions required.

Sorry, Buz, but I do believe you've exceeded your weekly quota of "perhapses", "maybes" and "what ifs". All in one post.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 12:36 PM Apothecus has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019