|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total) |
| |
Fyre1212 | |
Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
My problem is that the objects they are choosing to calibrate carbon levels have highly doubtful dates. If you can prove certainty of your dates, then my objection is dealt with, until then the calibration curve is based on dodgy dates and my objection remains valid. This is just absolute nonsense. You expect us to believe that all of the different elements that go into the calibration curve are all wrong, for a variety of different reasons, in the exact same manner? Tree-rings in California and Europe, lake and glacial varves in a variety of locations, spelothems, and corals are all wrong but still give the same answers! If you want to get serious let me know. Otherwise, your just wasting our time.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined:
|
This is just absolute nonsense. You expect us to believe that all of the different elements that go into the calibration curve are all wrong, for a variety of different reasons, in the exact same manner? Tree-rings in California and Europe, lake and glacial varves in a variety of locations, spelothems, and corals are all wrong but still give the same answers! If you want to get serious let me know. Otherwise, your just wasting our time. Its not a variety of reasons, 4 of those locations are precipitation sensitive. That's one reason. The half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory, but measured against existing dating methods and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions and this explains the consilience in the other 3 locations. Uranium-Thorium dating even calibrates against radiocarbon dating and so these dates become meaningless as independent verifiction of radiocarbon dates. Weather occurs in cycles and patterns, eg cold fronts. It logical that there would be approximately the same number of major precipitation events every year, and so the consilience is not unrealistic. Of all the locations in the world which have definite seasonal patterns, scientists have specifically found 4 locations that are precipitation sensitive rather than seasonal sensitive to find their consilience. Just this puts the whole consilience under doubt, due to the nature of the locations used contradicting the annual requirement of the layers:1) White Mountain bristlecone pines are precipitation sensitive and the location has very dry soil. I challenge you to explain to me how the wood continues to grow between rainfalls in an area of dry soils. 2) Lake Suigetsu is fed by a river in a small catchment area. I challenge you to explain to me how layers of sediment wash into a lake in seasonal patterns without a high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall 3) Ice cores are precipitation sensitive, each large snowfall/rainfall would by its very nature create a layer, please explain why those layers are annual and not sensitive to each major precipitation during the year. 4) Lake Lisan was also in a dry area, please explain why each rainfall in a semi-desert region does not form a layer of sediment. In wet regions sediment flows in rivers and lakes show seasonal patterns, due to saturated water tables allowing continuity of the flow between rainfalls. This seasonal effect is lessened in dry areas which are more sensitive to each and every rainfall. Unfortunately for you those locations definitely favor 11-12 layers a year consistent with precipitation, rather than one layer a year. You need a stronger argument than consilience to counter my argument of precipitation sensitivity of those locations, which explains the consilience due to consistent worldwide rainfall patterns.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Since you are leaving the field of radiocarbon dating and descending into various rabbit holes and "what-ifs," RAZD has proposed that he substitute for me in discussing those issues.
If this is acceptable, I will cease participation until those issues are dealt with.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I disagree about the rabbit holes and what-ifs.......
But I have no objection to RAZD substituting for you. I see some good points have been made in the peanut gallery, however if I start responding to them here this defeats the objective of a one-on-one discussion, and I only have time for a one-on-one. I am sure RAZD will be bringing some of those points into this discussion which will add spice to this debate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But I have no objection to RAZD substituting for you. ... Thank you. I will now stop posting on the Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD thread and shift my attention here. Below are some definitions that I think may be useful in this discussion, as these terms have been used frequently and I want to be sure we mean the same thing when they are used:
ac•cu•ra•cy[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.
In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's eye the greater the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.
pre•ci•sion[pri-sizh-uhn] noun
Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision. As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise.
con•cord•ance[kon-kawr-dns] noun
concordance would be a general relationship between two or more factors that would result in similar but not identical results.
cor•re•la•tion[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] noun
Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more precise than concordance.
cal•i•brate[kal-uh-breyt] verb (used with object), cal•i•brated, cal•i•brat•ing.
Calibration means taking a precise correlation and determining what needs to be done to correct the precise result to obtain more accurate results. Another word used in the debate so far is consilience:
quote: Consilience means taking two or more systems that have strong correlations and showing how they all point to the same result, thus consilience is stronger than any single set of evidence or just a correlation between systems in providing evidence of a trend or relationship being correct.
... I see some good points have been made in the peanut gallery, however if I start responding to them here this defeats the objective of a one-on-one discussion, and I only have time for a one-on-one. I am sure RAZD will be bringing some of those points into this discussion which will add spice to this debate. In a similar vein, my time is limited as well, and you have made a lot of points so far on this thread. Can we take your Message 17 as a summary of your argument to date? Starting fresh I don't want to respond to the whole post at this point, but if time permits I will answer some of your points. If I get way ahead of you, let me know. Can you pick what you think is your single best argument in that post, give me a run-down on it and post the evidence that supports it? We can get to the others later. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : finished link to peanut galleryadded clarity to defs revised order of post Edited by RAZD, : add concordanceby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I thought I would deal with one of the more egregious claims you have made, just to get it out of the way first:
Its not a variety of reasons, 4 of those locations are precipitation sensitive. ... http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ni/print.html
quote: Note that we have 4 places in Northern Ireland where the rainfall occurs with a similar but slightly different total rainfall per month in each place. Thus the rainfall pattern in Ireland alone is not precisely the same in all locations -- a requirement for your claim of consistent rainfall patterns causing rings instead of annual rings. Note further, that with the amount of rain in these areas the Oak trees would not be water limited in their growth. This alone is sufficient to invalidate your claim that the rings are due to precipitation rather than annual growth rings Here are precipitation records for four locations in Germany: Germany Annual City Climate Statistics, with Yearly Average Temperatures, & Rainfall for German Cities from A to Z(note images copied to off-site)
They too are different from each other, and they are different from the Irish records. They also show sufficient rainfall in any one month that the Oak trees would not be water limited in their growth. These records are also sufficient to invalidate your claim that the rings are due to precipitation rather than annual growth rings. Note that the months of highest rain are in the summer as opposed to Ireland when they were in the winter, and thus the differences between them and the Irish records can be regarded as more than sufficient evidence that this argument is dead. When we look at the ecology of the White Mountains -- where the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is found, we have White Mountains
quote: Thus it may be valid to claim that growth of the Bristlecone Pine is water limited, however it should be noted that most of the 12" of rain arrives as snow, and thus this water is not available for tree growth until it melts in the spring. As an evergreen (unlike the Oaks which are deciduous) these trees would tend to grow year-round, with the larger cell size growth in the spring, thus making annual rings that are easily discernable.
In all three chronologies the year without a summer was correctly identified as occurring in 1816, a precise and accurate assessment. In addition, the three dendrochronologies agree with over 99.5% precision for over 8,000 years of record (see Age Correlations thread for details). Conclusion The Irish and German Oak dendrochronologies are not based on rainfall patterns as claimed, but on annual growth patterns. The Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is based on annual precipitation from snow melting in the spring. In addition, the two Oak dendrochronologies and the Bristle-cone pine dendrochronology agree within 99.5% for over 8,000 years of record, and this consilience shows we can have a very high degree of confidence that we are dealing with annual rings, rather than precipitation rings, and that they are both accurate and precise. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : <> not ] Edited by RAZD, : used table for graphics to consolidate postby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... The half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory, but measured against existing dating methods and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions and this explains the consilience in the other 3 locations. Uranium-Thorium dating even calibrates against radiocarbon dating and so these dates become meaningless as independent verifiction of radiocarbon dates. As noted by Percy in Message 50 of the Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD thread there are several misconceptions here:
quote: Fortunately, ignorance and scientific illiteracy are curable by learning -- Uranium decays into Thorium, so this is basically a parent-daughter dating system, albeit complicated by Thorium decay, and information on this is easily found:
wiki - Uranium-Thorium quote: The age is calculated by a purely mathematical formula where the variables are:
The formula will always return exactly the same age for the same inputs, and thus the accuracy and precision of the dated relies on the accuracy and precision of the measurements.
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals quote: Thus we have highly precise and accurate measurements of the amount of uranium-234 and thorium-230 with the new technology, and we have updated, laboratory developed half-lives for both element\isotopes. This means that the Uranium-Thorium age determination should be precise and accurate to within 99% of actual age. The only variable left in the coral data is the conversion of ocean reservoir levels of 14C to atmospheric levels of 14C:
quote: If ignored then the reported ages would be older, as the 14C/12C ratio is less in the ocean. Because the 14C comes from the atmosphere the variation in levels is less in the ocean than in the atmosphere, so using average values is justified. The same issues of accurate determination of 14C and its half-life would of course hold for carbon-14 age determinations as well. From Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 5 quote: For raw carbon-14 ages No is taken to be the 1950 level of the 14C/12C ratio, the half-life used is 5730 years, Carbon-14 - Wikipedia
quote: so the only variable left that goes into the raw carbon-14 dates is the amount of 14C/12C in the sample.
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals quote: Again, a highly precise and accurate determination of the 14C content in the sample, rendered into a raw age datum by an exact mathematical formula, resulting in a highly precise raw age. We see in Message 21 that the three dendrochronologies are precise and accurate to within 99.5% of actual age, and thus we should see consilience between these two systems if we are indeed measuring true age by these systems, and we do:
quote: This has the raw 14C age on the "y" axis, as determined from precise and accurate measurements of the 14C content in the samples and an exact mathematical formula, and calendar age on the "x" axis, as determined by precise and accurate counting of tree rings and precise and accurate determination by the Uranium-Thorium method. The minor variation between these two methods would likely be reduced by further refinement of the reservoir effect over time. This becomes less of an effect with greater age due to the nature of the calculations. The dendrochronology age to 14C age correlation is shown by the green line, the Uranium-Thorium age to 14C age correlation is shown by the red dots. The dendrochronology data extends to over 12,400 years of uninterrupted, continuous growth. Conclusion The consilience of these two completely independent systems provides very high confidence in these results -- all the data is provided with over 99% precision and accuracy. The earth must be at least 12,400 years old according to this data, ... and highly likely to be considerably older than that, as the Uranium-Thorium data extends to over 50,000 years, and there are a lot more age measurement systems with this level of consilience. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : mid v msgby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
2) Lake Suigetsu is fed by a river in a small catchment area. I challenge you to explain to me how layers of sediment wash into a lake in seasonal patterns without a high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall Easy. Just a moment... (3)
quote: There are five different core sections taken in different sections of the lake. The effect of rapid deposition of sediment would be different in the different locations, as the rapid deposition would occur close to the inlet and taper off with distance. Most of the material so deposited would be sand and other materials with fast settlement rates. http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm
quote: http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html
quote: UMD: 404 Page Not Found
quote: Soil Colloids - agriinfo.in
quote: If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we get = 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day = 15.3 in/day. As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slowly. Actual times are longer due to the interaction of charged clay particles with water, and because the clay particles are not spherical, but it would take days if not weeks or months for new clay from rainstorms to settle to the bottom. This is especially true in the center of the lake as the new inflow must take time to mix with the lake water and get dispersed sufficiently to reach the center area. This means that the lake acts as a buffer to average out all the clay sediment being introduced to the lake by the inflow: even large variations in inflow will have little effect on the amount of clay settling to the bottom at the center of the lake. We see from above that the annual deposition of clay is 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year before that. You can see this on the following graph:
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE quote: This again confirms that the clay deposition is very very slow, taking months to accumulate. This means that the clay layers do not have " ... high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall ... " but rather that variations in the inflow have a completely negligable effect on the clay layer formation.
Message 51) Lake Suigetsu is so low lying and so near the coast that very high tides could cause mass Diatom die-offs creating diatom layers that are more frequent than annual. This is not fairytale what-ifs but a highly probable scenario given the lake's proximity to the sea. Diatoms form layers on the surface of the lake, as the salt water table rises this would kill off the lower freshwater diatoms. Someone speculated that the salt water would not rise high enough to kill off the lowest diatoms however this was mere speculation. No figures were actually presented (depth of lake/depth of diatom layer/depth of saltwater). Actually there are ~25 spring tides per year ... Lunar phase - Wikipedia
quote: That's 2x365.24/29.53 = 24.74 per year ... ... and the calibration curve (see below) would be nearly vertical because the horizontal axis would be compressed while the mathematical calculation of age from the 14C/12C ratios in the samples would be unaffected. Curiously, 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. and only when there are no further diatom deaths. Only the winter months provide the time necessary to form a clay layer. This also means that the 14C pattern matching to the dendrochronologies would not be possible. However, we have independent corroboration for Lake Suigetsu in two forms: (1) the age of volcanic layers and (2) the consilience with coral data http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf
quote: These ages are concordant with the age in Lake Suigetsu cores for both Sakate and Daisen-hoki in the graph above. Note that volcanic deposits are identified by signature elements, and are not the same from different volcanoes. Now on to consilience with the coral data:
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals quote: The data from Lake Suigetsu shows Just a moment... (3)
quote: This graph shows the previous dendrochronology calibration curve (green), the Lake Suigetsu data (blue) and data from marine corals (red) from Papua New Guinea (squares), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles). On this graph we have the Carbon-14 levels (represented as "Radiocarbon Age") shown for multiple cores from 8830 to ~20,000 years on the horizontal time scale, and data (I count ~50 samples) from ~20,000 to 37,930 years from one core correlated with counted varve layers, and then eight more organic samples where the horizontal age datum is assumed from sediment thickness (and which are not included in discussion here). This means that most of the 250 samples occurred in the area of most reliability - where there were multiple cores. We can discard the data after 37,930 years as being less reliable, depending as it does on estimates of layers rather than the actual layer counts used for the period between 8,830 to 37,930 years ago (with the overlap to dendrochronology between 8,830 and 12,405 years ago). Please note the consilience between the three sets of coral data and the Lake Suigetsu data on this last graph: these coral data points are independent and earlier than the coral study done here. Note that precision in measurements has improved due to new technology being able to make more accurate measurements than was previously available. From these two different graphs, from two different systems, we see a high degree of agreement - consilience - in the results. We now have high consilience between three (3) dendrochronologies, four (4) coral chronologies, two (2) volcanic eruption dates, and one (1) lake varve chronology. Conclusion The consilience of the Lake Suigetsu data and the Ohnuma Moor data for the volcanic eruption dates shows we can have a high degree of confidence in these dates. The consilience of Lake Suigetsu data with coral data -- completely independent systems -- provides very high confidence in these results . The consilience between the coral data and the highly precise and accurate dendrochronology provides very high confidence in these results. The earth must be at least 37,930 years old according to this data, ... and highly likely to be considerably older than that, as the Uranium-Thorium data extends to over 50,000 years, and there are a lot more age measurement systems with this level of consilience. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : spling Edited by RAZD, : added bits Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
3) Ice cores are precipitation sensitive, each large snowfall/rainfall would by its very nature create a layer, please explain why those layers are annual and not sensitive to each major precipitation during the year. Again this is fairly simple to do. Let's start with an easy example, from Age Correlations thread, msg 6: Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (3)
quote: There would also be pollen and seeds mixed in with the dust, which would only occur during the growing season. The layers are easy to identify because of the dust band. But that is not all this particular ice formation is useful for:
quote: The δ18O) measurement is like the tree-ring band width measurement as an indicator of climate, and thus matching δ18O) levels in different ice cores or other depositions can show consilience in the data or correlate one to the other. In this case it shows climate that is consilient with the archeological record for Peru. While this series of layers only date back to ~500AD they are important for a couple of reasons: they show visible layers, and they allow calibration of the oxygen isotope ratio (δ18O) as a measure of layers and of climate. These layers also show a period of sever weather that is known from history (the Little Ice Age) and the effects of a volcanic eruption nearby that occurred in 1600 AD. These results can then be applied to other ice cores. Continuing from the same slide show:
quote: The same kind of alternating layers of dust and snow as at Quelccaya, the same kind of climate information from the oxygen isotope ratio (δ18O), data that matches known climate markers, including the last ice age, data that also showed up in Lake Suigetsu climate information. Research on the Dunde Ice Cores is continuing, including analysis of the dust and pollen as markers not just of climate but of environment. http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/26/2/135 (5)
quote: Again we have dating correlated with climate information. http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu102k4348572506/ (6)
quote: We see evidence of the end of the last glaciation period in the dust and pollen in the layers of ice from the Dunde Ice Cap in addition to the evidence of the dδsup>18O ratios. The climate markers are similar to Lake Suigetsu and other data, and this shows a continuous annual record that is precise and accurate due to the difference between dry season dust and wet season snow. Dust could be blown by several storms, but this would stop when the wet season begins and then snow would accumulate from many storms before dust once again covered it the following year. Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data. And we are not done with ice cores yet. http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf (6)
quote: Note the consilience of the different cores and the different measuring systems. As you can see the ice cores take us back considerably further in time, while this is still the tip of the iceberg for core age data. Here are only concerned with the consilience of age and climate to the 14C data correlation and calibration. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
4) Lake Lisan was also in a dry area, please explain why each rainfall in a semi-desert region does not form a layer of sediment. In wet regions sediment flows in rivers and lakes show seasonal patterns, due to saturated water tables allowing continuity of the flow between rainfalls. This seasonal effect is lessened in dry areas which are more sensitive to each and every rainfall. Message 19 I disagree about the rabbit holes and what-ifs....... This is one:
Message 7 4) Lake Lisan was in a dry region that is also precipitation sensitive, not necessarily sensitive to entire seasons. http://www.tau.ac.il/...ublications/Lisan-levels-Machlus.pdf The low stand of Lake Lisan during most of this period indicates relative dry climatic conditions in the region. Curiously I read the paper and found absolutely nothing about 14C dating, calibration of 14C, tree ring counting or lake varve counting. The only thing you remark on -- dry climatic conditions -- applies to the dead sea area, an area geologically separate from any of the 14C vs annual layer systems. You have presented zero evidence that it is related to climate in any other location and that it affects 14C dating in any way. That's a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.
quote: The study basically investigates how alluvial fans at river mouths show the lake level history, it is completely irrelevant to 14C dating and to the formation of varves in the center of a lake. Perhaps you should read Introduction To Geology to better understand how irrelevant this is. So now I have answered each of the issues you raised in Message 17:
I have found these claims to be false (1 to 5) or irrelevant (Lake Lisan), and provided the information and objective empirical data that invalidates (falsifies) your false claims.
Message 3 Thanks for the thread. My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology, which I feel is unreliable due to assumptions about the annual nature of rings. Tree growth is normally relative to moisture, and moisture cycles are not always annual: I have shown that dendrochronology is both precise and accurate to it's current (data) limit of 12,405 years of age, with 100% accuracy and precision for the "year without a summer" in 1816 (197 years ago) and 99.5% accuracy and precision at over 8,000 years ago. I have shown that the tree rings are annual formations with high accuracy and precision. Thus I have answered to your "main problem" and this should be the end of this thread. Further I have shown that the Lake Suigetsu varves are in fact annual formations and thus their consilience with the tree ring data makes a stronger case for 14C dating. Further I have shown that the coral study consilience with both the dendrochronologies and Lake Suigetsu makes an even stronger case for 14C dating, if not for radiometric dating as a whole. I've shown how annual layers of ice are determined ... ... and I get to the point where I have to ask: do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have spent years studying for a PhD and decades of their lives studying these various systems are all such naive and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects? Really? Do you think that hundreds of creationists have also never considered these issues and asked questions (do you have any idea how many creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) are already out there)? Are you familiar with creationists say the funniest things? Seems to me that your precipitation claim fits that category.
... but measured against existing dating methods ... No, they are correlated with other methods, and the consilience of data (and there is a LOT more) shows that the correlation of 14C to actual age is valid and 99% precise, if mildly inaccurate (~90% accuracy), and that we CAN calibrate 14C to improve the accuracy of results (generally making them younger).
... and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions ... Which of course is a term based on misinformation, ignorance and denial (see cognitive dissonance below) -- 14C has nothing to do with evolution nor do any of the dating methods discussed. You only confuse yourself by using invalid terms. Perhaps if you articulate fully what you think these are, you can begin to see that your assumptions are false.
Unfortunately for you those locations definitely favor 11-12 layers a year consistent with precipitation, rather than one layer a year ... Rather obviously a totally made up number with absolutely no supporting evidence. By the time I finish with layered counting systems for the age of certain features on this earth you will need a much much larger factor to squeeze the natural history of this planet into any kind of YEC model. If you care to continue ... Curiously I don't expect much from you at this point, but I'll wait with unbated breath for your next installment ... if it comes ... (1) there isn't any real evidence for a young earth, so all you have is fantasy and delusion, and (2) cognitive dissonance -- you'll go into ignore mode and run away or try some other lame attempt to save face.
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. The objective empirical evidence shows consistently, consiliently, that the earth is old, very very old ... over 4.5 billion years old, and my advice is ... get used to it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added links Edited by RAZD, : spling Edited by RAZD, : 14C not 14Dby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Curiously I read the paper and found absolutely nothing about 14C dating, calibration of 14C, tree ring counting or lake varve counting. The only thing you remark on -- dry climatic conditions -- applies to the dead sea area, an area geologically separate from any of the 14C vs annual layer systems. You have presented zero evidence that it is related to climate in any other location and that it affects 14D dating in any way. That's a Red Herring Logical Fallacy. quote:Reconstruction of paleo-shorelines of Lake Lisan, the late Pleistocene precursor of the Dead Sea, is based on sequence stratigraphy of fan-delta and lacustrine deposits that are exposed at the Perazim Valley, southwest of the Dead Sea. The shoreline sediments are physically correlated with lacustrine aragonites, their ages are determined by U-series dating, to establish a lake-level curve for the time interval between 55 and 35 kyr. ... ... A correlation between the Lake Lisan sedimentary record and deep sea and ice core records reveals that during warm (interglacial) episodes in the North Atlantic, the Dead Sea-Jordan region was dry, and the level of Lake Lisan dropped (Stein, 1999; Schramm et al., 2000). ... The study basically investigates how alluvial fans at river mouths show the lake level history, it is completely irrelevant to 14C dating and to the formation of varves in the center of a lake. Perhaps you should read Introduction To Geology to better understand how irrelevant this is. Thank you RAZD for your well researched posts. I have had the time to start looking into replies to your first two posts, and before I replied you have since added some more. This possibly means that you have more time than me, in which case to even the playing field I would like you to post one post for every one of mine, to keep the number of discussion topics limited for now. I hope this is ok for you, I think it would make it easier for everyone and ourselves to follow the discussion. You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in message 4:Tree Ring Lake Suigetsu Bahamas Speleothem Carioca Basin PS2644 Lake Lisan Papua New Guinea Lake Lisan is clearly listed as one of the points of consilience related to radiocarbon dating, and this is why I brought up Lake Lisan to look into how those layers were formed. My focus remains on those 7 points of consilience which is when you joined the conversation and therefore Lake Lisan remains relevant. The only point I was making from the link is that Lake Lisan was in a dry region, I'm not sure why you were trying to find other relevance in my link when I was clear on what was relevant.
I have shown that dendrochronology is both precise and accurate to it's current (data) limit of 12,405 years of age, with 100% accuracy and precision for the "year without a summer" in 1816 (197 years ago) and 99.5% accuracy and precision at over 8,000 years ago. I have shown that the tree rings are annual formations with high accuracy and precision. Thus I have answered to your "main problem" and this should be the end of this thread. Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts? Also to post a picture of a plummeting plane is a little premature in my eyes. Also to assume my link on Lake Nisan was irrelevant is one point, but to post about a Red Herring Logical Fallacy is going a little far considering you were wrong about the irrelevance.
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. The objective empirical evidence shows consistently, consiliently, that the earth is old, very very old ... over 4.5 billion years old, and my advice is ... get used to it. This discussion is in its infancy, please do not mistake my busy lifestyle and slow replies for avoidance. I am looking forward to your open mind during the rest of our discussion, hoping you will have a mature approach to the rest of the discussion. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I thought I would deal with one of the more egregious claims you have made, just to get it out of the way first: When I said four of those locations are precipitation sensitive I was not referring to Ireland or Germany. I was referring to Lake Lisan, White Mountains of California, Lake Suigetsu and Cariaco Basin. I thought that the Cariaco Basin was ice core related, but since then I see it relates to sediments washing into the gulf of Mexico, which is also precipitation related during past times.
Note that we have 4 places in Northern Ireland where the rainfall occurs with a similar but slightly different total rainfall per month in each place. Thus the rainfall pattern in Ireland alone is not precisely the same in all locations -- a requirement for your claim of consistent rainfall patterns causing rings instead of annual rings. I agree that the whole world does not have exactly the same rainfall patterns, but this wasn't the actual requirement of my claim. Maybe you missed the essence of my claim, possibly I am at fault through not communicating clearly. Due to weather having patterns from major weather phenomenon like cold fronts, cyclones etc, there is a regular cyclical nature to weather in most locations. Various locations on earth can have an annual weather pattern of approximately 10-12 major wet spells interspersed with dry spells and minor wet spells. I wasn't meaning to imply that the whole world has exactly the same weather in exactly the same patterns. 3 weather stations close to locations under discussion are as follows: White Mountains:Bishop Climate, Weather By Month, Average Temperature (California, United States) - Weather Spark Mammoth Lakes Climate, Weather By Month, Average Temperature (California, United States) - Weather Spark Jordan River:Amman Climate, Weather By Month, Average Temperature (Jordan) - Weather Spark Cariaco Basin:Maiqueta Climate, Weather By Month, Average Temperature (Venezuela) - Weather Spark Monthly rainfall charts are irrelevant to this discussion as they do not reveal significant dry and wet spells, we need daily rainfall charts for that.
White Mountains quote: Located in east central California just north of Death Valley, and on the western edge of the Great Basin, the White Mountains rise to a respectable altitude of 14,246 feet (4342m). Yet they remain in a rain shadow map of the Sierra Nevada located a few miles west across the deep Owens Valley. As Pacific storms move eastward, the Sierra simply takes the majority of moisture, leaving the White Mountains with strong dry winds. Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. On a summer's day the amount of precipital moisture in the air is about half a millimeter, the lowest ever recorded anywhere on earth. . Your quote simply supports my position. The soils are so dry, that its impossible for the trees to grow during the dry spell. Every rain spell therefore shows as a ring, because the growing stops between the rain spells. Yes the spring melt would cause a ring, but these trees are also temperature sensitive, and so rainfalls during the warmer months would also cause small rings. Between the spring melt and summer rainfalls the tree cannot grow, as the soil completely dries out. The summer rainfalls are most suitable for growth (warmth and water) and so rings would form then.
Thus it may be valid to claim that growth of the Bristlecone Pine is water limited, however it should be noted that most of the 12" of rain arrives as snow, and thus this water is not available for tree growth until it melts in the spring. As an evergreen (unlike the Oaks which are deciduous) these trees would tend to grow year-round, with the larger cell size growth in the spring, thus making annual rings that are easily discernable. You believe just one tree ring was formed annually in spring? If this is what you believe I find that highly unrealistic. Contrary to your claims, the rainfall figures over the last year also do show significant rainfalls above an inch in summer in the area. These trees are temperature sensitive, and with a complete drying out of soil in a dry spell after spring, there is no reason to doubt growth during a warmer period of summer rainfall. To create chronologies further back than living trees (dated to 4800 bp) you need dead trees that have remained in good condition for thousands of years. How did these dead trees survive without rotting for so long? In addition creationists have actually shown that young bristlecone pines can show multiple rings per year, this study was done by Lammerts.
In all three chronologies the year without a summer was correctly identified as occurring in 1816, a precise and accurate assessment Please present your evidence for this comment in all 3 chronologies. I'm especially interested in your proof of this in specifically those most ancient of living bristlecone pines in the arid white mountain area. Many bristlecone pines are found in warmer wetter areas, of course these would show annual rings, but this would not prove your point about the more ancient bristlecone pines.
In addition, the three dendrochronologies agree with over 99.5% precision for over 8,000 years of record (see Age Correlations thread for details). Conclusion The Irish and German Oak dendrochronologies are not based on rainfall patterns as claimed, but on annual growth patterns. The Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is based on annual precipitation from snow melting in the spring. I wont be referring to entire whole threads for your evidence, if you wish to make a point kindly post your point in this thread, or give me a link to an exact post in another thread regarding this 8000 year agreement. Up to this point I haven't discussed the Irish and German Oak chronologies. Neither of these are in dry regions therefore I agree with you about annual rings currently. However I believe these regions were in dryer environments in the past. The Holocene had dry patches which would have affected tree growth rings by a large factor (the number of annual wet/dry spells per year). This would be reflected in much smaller rings during dry periods.http://www.clim-past.net/8/1751/2012/cp-8-1751-2012.pdf Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts? What I said was that this should be the end of this thread because your "main problem with carbon dating" was answered, and thus it is a fair assesment. That you don't accept an answer does not mean that it has not been provided.
You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in Message 4: Your original claim in Message 3 was "its calibration against tree ring chronology..." and so you are now moving the goal posts to other correlations while blissfully ignoring the consilience of all the different methods, hand waving them away with some fantasy about precipitation sensitivity. There are three (3) distinct dendrochronologies, Irish Oak, German Oak and Pine, and Bristlecone Pine from the White Mountains in Nevada. Your "main problem with carbon dating" has been answered by showing that tree ring calculation is 100% accurate and precise for 1816 the "year without a summer" and slightly over 99.5% accurate and precise for a bit over 8,000 years of record; by showing that the oak dendrochronologies are not water limited as you claimed, and that the major source of water for the Bristlecone Pine comes from snow-melt in the spring, thus causing annual rings in all three very consilient records. Between the three dendrochronologies the greatest difference is between the Bristlecone Pine and the two (2) oak dendrochronologies, where the pine chronology is 37 years younger than the oak chronologies at the 8,000 year mark. This indicates that the pine chronology is more likely to be missing some annual rings than to have rainfall rings. I can go into this in greater detail if you still have trouble accepting this.
You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in Message 4: Coyote showed you the graph so that you could see the consilience of data and your answer was to question each item and make up a fantasy about precipitation sensitivity. That is chasing rabbit holes.
Tree Ring Lake Suigetsu Bahamas Speleothem Carioca Basin PS2644 Lake Lisan Papua New Guinea Lake Lisan is clearly listed as one of the points of consilience related to radiocarbon dating, and this is why I brought up Lake Lisan to look into how those layers were formed. ... And yet the study you referenced had absolutely nothing to do with the 14C study -- that is what makes it a red herring. Curiously scientific papers list the references used in the paper so that other people can check the information from those references. Here is that graph again:
This is the reference list(*) from the paper with that graph:
quote: (*) note that I have added numbers to this list for quicker reference in this debate. The papers in question for the graph are:
So those are the seven papers you should read, quote from and criticize in relation to the curve above. As a start. But I also expect that if you were truly interested in this subject that you would read every paper in the reference list -- that is what a scientific critic would do, rather than someone who is ignorant of 99% of this work throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. Notice that if you keep challenging the new information presented that you now have 116 peer reviewed papers to challenge with some uneducated fantasy mechanism that makes all these scientists such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the accuracy of their study in any way.
Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts? Also to post a picture of a plummeting plane is a little premature in my eyes. So challenge the dendrochronologies with some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them, not with uneducated fantasy. You can start with these papers:
Articles in Radiocarbon can be found here:Radiocarbon (opens with latest issue articles - go to sidebar to navigate the archive by issue) Issue 46 No 3 index is at Radiocarbon The abstract for the first paper (INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP) is here with the Full PDF Download Here quote: Note that the 37 year difference over ~8,000 years of chronology was considered too large for this calibration. This is an error of less than 0.5%, with the Bristlecone Pine chronology younger than the oak chronology. The abstract for the second paper (The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from Central Europe; a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions) is here with the Full PDF Download Here quote: Don't forget to check the references as well ...
Also to assume my link on Lake Nisan was irrelevant is one point, but to post about a Red Herring Logical Fallacy is going a little far considering you were wrong about the irrelevance. Except that I wasn't wrong about the irrelevance -- your paper had nothing to do with 14C data and correlations with actual age. An honest debater would use the appropriate paper, not one picked seemingly at random.
This discussion is in its infancy, please do not mistake my busy lifestyle and slow replies for avoidance. I am looking forward to your open mind during the rest of our discussion, hoping you will have a mature approach to the rest of the discussion. No, your participation is in its infancy. Both coyote and I have years of involvement with it. My participation spans over 8 years on this forum since I began the first Age Correlations thread, now in its fourth version with over 1236 posts ... with no evidence that the ages given are false. You provide me with objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy wishful hokum and you will see how open-minded I am. Try to snow me with BS and fantasy and you will find my skepticism of your argument difficult to beat. And if you want a mature discussion then you can stop insulting the thousands of scientist who put their life work into this field by presenting childish complaints and wishful fantasies that a little research on your part would show you their fallacy. I repeat: do you really think that all all these scientists (see reference list for a sampling) are such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects? Further, if you want to have a mature discussion then you will provide objective empirical evidence to support your position and explain not just why any single system is wrong but why they are all wrong in the same manner, even when they depend on totally different mechanisms. Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined:
|
"Uranium-Thorium" is a dating method, not an element with a half life. Uranium is one element, Thorium is another. Both Uranium and Thorium have a number of isotopes. Isotopes are a family of types of the same element with the same number of protons in the nucleus but different numbers of neutrons. Each isotope will have a different half-life, except for stable isotopes which do not decay and therefore do not have a half-life. The Uranium referred to is 234U with a half-life of 245,000 years. The Thorium referred to is 230Th with a half life of 75,000 years. The half-lives of both 234U and 230Th have been measured in the laboratory. All this is true, I should have worded my point more carefully. There are various ways to establish the half-lives of isotopes, possibly the most accurate would be to test the ratio of parent/daughter of the same sample, in a mass spectrometer over a precise time period (eg 10 years). Another method would be to use instruments to test the number of decay events, and to establish a rate of decay from that. However in actually determining the half lives of thorium and uranium the following link gives no hint that either method was used. Instead the actual ratios of parent/daughter and their subsequent half-lies were determined using samples of rocks dated using other methods.http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf "we measured 234U/238U and 230TH/238U atomic ratios in 4 different materials that were likely to have behaved as closed systems for 10`6 years." Unless you can show me otherwise it appears the most accurate calibration of uranium/thorium dating is calibrated using uranium-uranium dated samples (234U/238U). Ratios were determined in a laboratory using mass spectrometry, but actual decay events were not measured in a laboratory. This could open up a can of worms because you now have to prove the accuracy of radiometric dating to verify your carbon dates.
The age is calculated by a purely mathematical formula where the variables are: the half-life of uranium-234, the half-life of thorium 230 the amount of uranium-234 in the sample and the amount of thorium-230 in the sample The formula will always return exactly the same age for the same inputs, and thus the accuracy and precision of the dated relies on the accuracy and precision of the measurements. The important point here is to determine how accurately and how independently they measured the half-lives of thorium 230 and uranium 234. You are welcome to post evidence that Ur-th dating was measured independently of other dating methods.
Conclusion The consilience of these two completely independent systems provides very high confidence in these results -- all the data is provided with over 99% precision and accuracy. I have yet to see any proof that Ur-Th decay rates were established independently of calibration with other dating methods. If they were calibrated against other dating methods then this in itself explains the consilience and makes your conclusion irrelevant.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined:
|
No, your participation is in its infancy. Both coyote and I have years of involvement with it. My participation spans over 8 years on this forum since I began the first Age Correlations thread, now in its fourth version with over 1236 posts ... with no evidence that the ages given are false. You provide me with objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy wishful hokum and you will see how open-minded I am. Try to snow me with BS and fantasy and you will find my skepticism of your argument difficult to beat. And if you want a mature discussion then you can stop insulting the thousands of scientist who put their life work into this field by presenting childish complaints and wishful fantasies that a little research on your part would show you their fallacy. I repeat: do you really think that all all these scientists (see reference list for a sampling) are such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects? Further, if you want to have a mature discussion then you will provide objective empirical evidence to support your position and explain not just why any single system is wrong but why they are all wrong in the same manner, even when they depend on totally different mechanisms. Enjoy. I'm ignoring your whole post. Its too long and immature for good discussion. If you would like to re-post your most relevant points, you are welcome. I am making precise points, and if you are able to answer the actual points I make in a more succint manner I would appreciate the exchange.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024