Hi Coyote, I wonder what people like Mindspawn think is going on with the calibration tables. Why would the tables be produced, and modified as better information is available, if they were not at least reasonably accurate? Given the reasonable correlation of C14 dates and dendro with Egyptian history, there is not much time to the Flood to fit in all the extra tree rings required, let alone fitting in Suigetsu. Mindspawn should show us his calibration curve to see what C14 dates of say 10,000 and 30,000 years would represent in his scheme. What I have seen on Creationist sites, they don't even try to address the problem of correlations.
Hi Coyote. You have articulated my thoughts much better than I could. A couple of questions for you if I may, to help me in discussions with YEC. Do I understand IntCal 13 correctly in that it is a table to refer to in order to convert a raw C14 date to the currently best evidenced true date? In looking up IntCal I saw a reference that the CIO curve previously used was off because they did not consider the effect of earthquakes on Suigetsu varves. Do you know by how much it was out? In addition my further appreciation to RAZD for his diligence and patience.
Thank you for that. 650 C14 dates! A YEC assures me that 98% of radiometric dates are rejected and only the 2% "right" dates are kept. That means you have spent about 650X50X500 - about $16,000,000 on C14 dating. Must be money in archaeology! (ducks head under desk to avoid having throat torn out by irate lupine)
The last time I was at the seaside, the tide came in and went out twice a day with a bigger variation between high and low than between spring and neap high tide. But leaving that aside, MS wants enough salt to enter the lake to stop the diatoms growing, then to clear back to fresh to allow growth, and this to happen on a two week cycle. Any salt water that did get in would layer at the bottom or the lake and not affect the upper areas for the main diatom growth anyway. This is not clutching at straws; it is blindly grasping at rainbows!
That is very sad. I was YEC for years but wondered why the scientists were so sure of long ages. I was able to study the evidence and go where it led. (Thank you RAZD) I see many YEC that have the view of scientists that they are seeing just what they want to see and/or are ignoring contrary results and/or are led by Satan. The few that I have been able to present any evidence to just retreat to saying they will believe the Bible.
Does anyone know of any serious or halfway serious attempt by YECs, especially ICR etc, to explain the consilience of C14 with dendro and lake varves? Just saying trees can form more than one ring a year or varves aren't necessarily annual doesn't cut it. Also any explanation of why seamount chain dating is consistent with plate movement, supporting long age RM dating.
Mindie thinks he can explain the annual layers, but doesn't seem to realise he then has to explain why the C14 dates vary in almost direct proportion with the varve count,and indeed with depth of deposit in other areas without annual layers such as Lynch's crater in Queensland. Also I hope his reference to carbon in the deeper layers was meant to refer to C14. He makes it sound as though a smaller amount of carbon would give a larger age. I remain gobsmacked by RAZD's thoroughness and patience.
One mentioned the large C14 fluctuations during the last glacial as reported in an article in Nature. They seemed to say this somehow made the study unreliable.
One damned the study of the varves for not considering the Flood as an explanation.
The last mentioned Suigetsu to show that C14 dates did not agree exactly with the count, and needed to be calibrated., which of course is a major reason for the study of the lake.
Interestingly, when I returned to the ICR site to check further, I could get no hits for Suigetsu! I don't have access to the article in Nature mentioned above, but I guess it was discussing the plateau in C14 ages then.
I revisited CMI and found an article by Woodmorappe attempting to debunk conventional dating. He referenced an article in Science 292(5526) 2453-2458, 29 June, 2001, and stated it showed up to a 10.000 year discrepancy between the dates from Suigetsu and C14 in the 10,000 to 40.000 year range. I know a lot of work has been done since, but does anyone have access to the original article to comment?