Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
63 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, xongsmith (3 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,214 Year: 10,962/23,288 Month: 214/1,763 Week: 181/390 Day: 1/69 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 30 of 224 (705444)
08-27-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
08-27-2013 10:40 AM


Re: On C14 dating
You also might want to bookmark RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?, Dr. Beertsche's evaluation. This appears at RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating, wherein there's lots of analysis and devastating criticism of RATE's ratty results. Oh, and A Dialogue about RATE.

Edited by JonF, : Add last link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2013 10:40 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 31 of 224 (705445)
08-27-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mindspawn
08-27-2013 10:57 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites

Mainstream science has willingly and in unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists. All of them are BS. Creationists refusing to accept this fact are the reason for all these websites and dialog.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mindspawn, posted 08-27-2013 10:57 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 40 of 224 (705582)
08-29-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 6:46 AM


Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period.

He's already explained why you are wrong. You are ignoring calibration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 7:44 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 224 (705601)
08-29-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 7:44 AM


How can you calibrate if the relationship between carbon-14 production and the strength of the magnetic field has not been established.

By comparing 14C results to the results of other dating methods (on the same samples) that do not have any link to the Earth's magnetic field. As already explained. in Message 26 and you're ignoring:

quote:
...it ignores the point that they make, which is that the ratio between c-12 and c-14 has been changing and increasing the proportion of c-14, assuming that the ratio has been relatively constant over the last thousands of years causes the samples to appear much older than they really are, what you have to say about that?

If that were the case, you might have a point. However, the radiocarbon method, as it is currently used, does correct for atmospheric variation. It does so by comparing radiocarbon dates on items of known ages with radiocarbon ages themselves. In this manner the changes in C14 levels in the atmosphere are corrected for.

The items of known ages include tree-rings, varves, annular rings in corals, etc. Not surprisingly, the calibration curve for these various materials is in close agreement and if I remember correctly, the maximum correction is on the order of 11%.

This is what the calibration curve looks like:

Your comment is another example of creationists raising arguments against radiocarbon dating without knowing what they are talking about. The problem of atmospheric fluctuations was identified by scientists over 50 years ago and a calibration curve has been developed to deal with it.

Here is a good article dealing with the calibration curve (pdf format):

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals


Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions? is a good explanation by a former YEC, formerly withthe ICR but left because he insisted on honesty. I think he still doesn't agree with all of mainstream science but on this subject he's sound.

You could also read the Wikipedia article on 14C calibration; it's pretty accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 7:44 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 60 of 224 (705647)
08-30-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.

Sounds like a somewhat confused version of R.H. Brown's theory.

It doesn't work.

If there was essentially zero radiocarbon circa 4500 years ago, then the dynamics of radiocarbon in the atmosphere and ocean and organisms is such that we would still be a long way from secular equilibrium (since we are now less than one half-life of 14C from the supposed zero), and we would have been even farther from secular equilibrium in historic times. This leads immediately to obvious impossibilities. If the 14C/12C ratio in a sample is not almost completely due to decay but is also significantly due to a much lower 14C/12C ratio when the organism died, then everything we have dated is noticeably younger than we think. But we have exceptionally solid evidence that the 14C/12C ratio has been essentially constant for the last 3500 years or so.

My favorite example is bread dug up from Pompeii, under the ashes of Vesuvius' eruption in 79 AD. If you are correct, then the wheat from which that bread was baked grew centuries after the bread was buried under Vesuvius' ash.

Here's poster Mike PSS's graph based on his spreadsheet, which doesn't seem to be around anymore, but I could probably get it from him in a few days:

And, of course, the consilience with other methods is still there. Creationists just can't handle consilience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 61 of 224 (705648)
08-30-2013 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
08-30-2013 1:27 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Without a shred of evidence for the flood, you simply assert a flood and different atmospheric conditions because not doing so means admitting you are

Well, he is close to a testable scientific hypothesis. Nothing wrong with exploring the implications of a hypothesis. He's very likely unaware that hypotheses such as that have been formed, tested, and proved false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 62 of 224 (705649)
08-30-2013 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
08-30-2013 1:27 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
.

Edited by JonF, : Damn mouse randomly double-clicks and double posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 74 of 224 (705804)
09-02-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Fair enough. Please present your evidence that carbon dating has been calibrated to other specific known historical dates. Once you have presented that evidence I will see if it has been cherry picked.

A few calibrations against historical dates have been done. Almost all of carbon dating's calibration is done against other methods of dating the same samples, notably dendrochronology, varves, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms, δ[sup]18[/sup]O in ice cores. These other methods are all consilient; they give the same results to within a small margin of error. If you want to claim that varves aren't annual, you need to explain why dendrochronology and U-Th dating and δ[sup]18[/sup]O agree with it. And the same for all the methods. Given the consilience the simplest explanation is that the dating methods are all measuring the same thing, real time elapsed.

If you want to proffer another explanation, you must explain the consilience.

As for the data, you can have as much as you want from Radiocarbon vol 51 no 4 and IntCal09 Supplemental Data.

You should also look at Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1996 Progress Report


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 9:00 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 83 of 224 (705828)
09-02-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 9:00 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates.

Wut?

The tree ring dates and the conventional dates agree. (The technical term is "consilience".) That is a verification of both. Are you claiming that Rohl's chronology would have come up with a different date than the conventional one? If so, what would be the significance of the mismatch between dendrochronology and Rohl's chronology? Well, it would mean that Rohl's chronology is wrong. (You've tried to handwave consilience away, but it's still the elephant in the room).

There's also Jerusalem Tunnel Linked to Bible. They used 14C to date a leaf embedded in the plaster (obviously older than the plaster) and U-Th disequilibrium (one of the techniques used to calibrarte 15C) to date a plaster stalagmite (obviously younger than the tunnel) and bracketed the date the tunnel was built.

The consilience is simply cherry picking.

You're awfully sure of yourself. Upon what evidence do you make this determination?

Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology.

Yup, that's what we have.

Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact.

Really? Do tell. Explain. In detail. With citations.

Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis.

As far as anyone can tell, no. And WTF are the "less easily understood sequences"? They're all pretty much the same difficulty.

And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results.

True. But there is no doubt on each study. At least no doubt of significance; each might be off by a percent or two. And there's no evidence of scientists discarding studies of any kind.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 9:00 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 112 of 224 (709162)
10-22-2013 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 6:04 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Thanks for correcting me, yes they produce organic carbon from carbon dioxide. This does create a problem for radiocarbon dating because fossils from organisms that produce organic carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates. Was this done with the diatom fossils in Lake Suigetsu?

Showing your ignorance again. No, it was not done because it was not necessary. Fossils from marine organisms that incorporate carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates, because their shells are at least partly derived from deep-ocean carbon sources that are not in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon sources. The diatoms in lake Suigetsu are not marine.

Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.

You need to look up the history of lake Suigetsu. When the varves were formed it had no connection to a source of salt water. If you want to invoke water table seepage, show us the numbers. What you make up doesn't count. What you can demonstrate does.

And, of course like all YECs you can't bring yourself to address the consilience of the varve counts with dendrochronology and 14C dating and the relatively recent correlation with Ar-Ar dating of tephras and palaeoclimatology (Tephra).

Until you address this consilience you haven't even got a hypothesis.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:04 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:29 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 116 of 224 (709207)
10-22-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
10-22-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
He/she thinks that the Lake Suigetsu varve 14C dates are way off because no marine reservoir correction was applied.

Can't tell the difference between marine and lacustrine. And consilience with other methods? Pah!

And he/she doesn't even know that the Suigetsu diatoms are not dated by 14C. The dating is done in plant material embedded within the varves. I missed that in my previous replies. See Radiocarbon (14C) Calibration

Edited by JonF, : Add last paragraph.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:14 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 118 of 224 (709217)
10-22-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-22-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.

As others have mentioned, they dated terrestrial organic material such as leaves, twigs, and even insects. They didn't carbon date the diatoms. What they used the diatoms for was measuring annual deposits. Each spring and summer there is a bloom of diatoms which produces a white deposit. In the fall/winter there is less diatom growth so the deposits are dominated by darker colored clays. Therefore, a white diatom layer and a darker clay layer makes one year.

He/she is proposing that the layers themselves are not annual, but are deposited much faster by some "tidal water table related die-offs". Of course there are holes in this you could drive a truck through. E.g. how do tides affect a lake, that's not connected to the sea, through the water table? How do tides even transmit through the water table? How do tides affect the 14C dates of embedded plant material in exact step with the diatom blooms and die-offs? How do tides cause diatom blooms and then die-offs? How do tides in Japan cause trees all over the world to lay down thousands of rings per year in exact step with the varves in Suigetsu? Why does the tephra layer correlated with a nearby volcano date by Ar-Ar almost exactly the same as the 14C date of that layer?

The fact that he/she doesn't know what's being dated by 14C is a separate major error.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-22-2013 3:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:56 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 123 of 224 (709259)
10-23-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:23 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
You still aren't making any effort to learn enough to be able to discuss the subject.

The Suigetsu varves are formed by a constant accumulation of dark sediment that is whitened by a bloom of diatoms in the spring, followed by a die-off when the food supply is nearly exhausted.

There's a reasonably non-technical explanation at Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology. Just another link for you to ignore.

In most varve situations, and I bet in Suigetsu as well, any significant salinity in the water stops varve formation by flocculating the clay sediment as it settles. And you have yet to come up with even a fantasy about how tides or anything could affect the varve formation when the varves were forming and Suigetsu was not connected to the sea. Tides don't move saltwater any significant distance through the water table, there's too much friction. Lake Suigetsu's closest approach to the sea is about 1 km, and there is no noticeable salt in the lake (see map and description at Mikata-goko lakes, another one for you to ignore).

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:23 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 124 of 224 (709260)
10-23-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:29 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.

Nope, not a chance. Consilience between varve counts and 14C dates and tree rings and Ar-Ar dating of tephra and U-Th dating of corals is not due to cherry-picking. Unless you can show evidence of such.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6158
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 126 of 224 (709265)
10-23-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I explained this to Percy in post 102. Please feel free to reply to that post, the links explain the seawater tidal effects on the water table.

I looked at your links. They show tidal salinity effects only in areas within a couple of hundred yards or less from the sea. Not a kilometer from the sea as is Suigetsu. Plus Suigetsu is very still and stratified, and any salinity introduced at the edges would take a long time to diffuse to the center of the lake where the varves have been cored. Your claim doesn't cut the mustard.

Seawater is heavier than freshwater, the bottom layers of the diatom bloom would have experienced the greatest die-offs at the peaks of the seawater infiltration during every spring tide.

Ther diatoms bloom at the surface and settle after dying. If seawater intruded at the bottom of the lake it would have no effect.

I believe dates are consistently overestimated through carbon dating. So overestimating the varve period would fit in with overestimated carbon dates.

And the two independent overestimates would just happen to agree essentially perfectly? And just happen to agree with dendrochronology, and Ar-Ar dating of tephra, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms and Cariaco basin varves (see A high-resolution record of atmospheric 14C based on Hulu Cave speleothem H82 figures 5 and 6) and many others I'm not going to bother to dig up for you to ignore.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Other than the possibility of the varves being formed during spring tides, its also possible to relate them to rainfall patterns, wish of course would affect the sediment patterns in the lake, and could relate to intermittent flooding and not necessarily annual layering.

Consilience between multiple independent dating methods


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:56 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020