Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Literalist,What is it with all of the creationists having good attitudes lately? I'll have to start watching the sky for flying pigs.I am more of a visual leaner, so I thought I would list some of the more important graphs that tie in the topics in the original post. I often find that graphs speak a thousand words, so to speak. These are all from the lake varve paper: http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmGraph one: The solid dots represent the ages calculated from the C14 dates in Lake Suigetsu (Japan) and the open circles represent data points from Lake Gosciaz (Poland). This graph shows that seasonal/weather pattern differences do not affect the dating of lake varves by C14 dating, being that the two sites are on opposite sides of the world.Graph two: This graph shows the correlation between lake varves (Japan, closed circles) and coral dating through uranium/thorium dating (open circles). This is especially important because the two dating methods differ in method (varves/coral, C14/uranium) and are also in different places. Again, it is the corroboration between dating methods that solidifies the reliability of these different methods.These same graphs can be constructed for varves vs. ice layers, ice layers vs. tree rings, etc. There is no way, in my mind, that a global flood could produce these findings, much less be explained in a 6,000 year old earth. Of course, this is my conclusion from the data and your conclusion is what we will probably be discussing.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-09-2004 03:42 PM

quote:

---

I have a question. The oldest bristlecone pine tree was 4,900 years old. How can we find out that the Earth is 8,000 years old minimum from this fact? Do we have trees that have been dead for thousands of years, and we can match up events such as forest fires and droughts recorded in their rings with the events recorded in living trees?

---

That's exactly it. The amount of rainfall is directly related to the thickness of the annual ring. By matching a pattern of thicknesses between older and newer trees a complete chronology can be established.

quote:

---

Also, I'd like to add that layers of mud in lakes in the Eastern US record which species of trees were present at various locations, up to 15,000 years. The pollen is stored in layers, and through analysis of the pollen grains the relative distribution of each species could be determined. So that can be added to the list.

---

I have read about that as well, mapping shifting ecological habitats using pollen grains and trace fossils. This is a great way to illustrate the theory of superposition, but these layers are not annual and are hard to date unlike the lake varves. This topic is centered around verifying the accuracy of radiometric dating with non-radiometric dating techniques such as annual deposition of algae, ice, tree rings, coral layers, and calcite deposits.

quote:

---

Ned, The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form, the diatoms, organics settle first, then the clays.

---

Then why do these varves correlate with the way that trees put on rings and ice in the arctic, and anarctic, put down ice layers? How do waves affect these other two correlations in the exact same fashion so that the C14 dates match? How do waves from occasional winds explain the correlation between the lake in Japan and the lake in Poland? Are you saying that they have the same exact wind patterns, that is the same strength of wind on the same exact days, as the lake in Japan?

quote:

---

I just don't know enough about C-14, like is it diluted in water so affecting sea creatures ages differently than say a tree ring?

---

The dates also include leaves and insects trapped in each of the layers, so it is not entirely dependentont on the dating of diatoms.

quote:

---

Ned, If your dating leaves, there might be some correlations back 5,000 years. I've heard that C-14 is soluble so make me question annual varves farther back in time.

---

The C14 tied up in organic samples, such as insects and leaves, is not soluble. If it were soluble those samples would not even exist. Also, even if C14 were moving out of the samples it would not distort the ratio of C14 to C12, the two isotopes that are used to date the sample. That is, if C14 is soluble then so is C12 and so the date would not be effected.

quote:

---

Your not addressing glacial melt contributing multitudes of varves by natural sedimentation and natural erosion.

---

Even if glacial melts created layers, they would not be able to explain the thickness of the diatom layers. The lake can only sustain a certain number of diatoms. Each annual layer of diatoms reflects the annual carrying capacity for these diatoms. Therefore, the lake would have to be producing 10 or 100 fold more diatoms to create these layers if they hapened more than once a year.Also, if there was a sudden increase in sediments entering the lake, then we would expect a mixture of diatoms and clay, more than what we currently see in the diatom layers. Those diatoms will settle out during the summer no matter what, and at a high rate given the difference in density between diatoms and clay particles. Therefore, glacial melts would be marked by a clay layer, a mixture of clay and diatoms, and then diatoms alone, and then clay. Instead, what we actually see, is completely separate diatom and clay layers. Glacial melts are inadequate for explaining these layers, as are waves for the same exact reasons.

quote:

---

Its like if your not calibrating your C-14 to these lower varves, they would all appear to be near the same age, supporting the Creationists models. As the sediments compress it would appear that the that dissolved c-12/c-14 would bubble upward. This would be creating the illusion that each varve is slightly older, when multitudes of the varves could of formed suddenly by Bethauld's Law of hydrodynamic sorting.

---

False. Paul touched on it briefly, but I will try to expand on it. Leaves, for example, are mostly made of cellulose. This is a sugar polymer that is not dissolvable in water, otherwise trees would melt each time it rained. The carbon atoms of a new leaf have a C14 content equal to that of the air due to the fact that the CO2 from the air is used to make cellulose through photosynthesis. Therefore, a newly formed leaf will have the same C12/C14 ratios as earth's atmosphere. When this leaf stops growing and separates from the tree the C14 in the leaf starts to decay to C12. Since this leaf is no longer growing, the decaying C14 is not replaced by C14 from the air. Therefore, if a leaf is very low in C14 we know that it is older than new leaves.So, C14 dating is a very reliable way to date dead leaves, and dead insects for the very same reason. The carbon in leaves does not "bubble up" because it is part of the leaf in the form of cellulose. Therefore, if varves formed over a very short period of time then the C14 dating of the leaves in each varve should reflect this. They don't. It is not possible for the varves to be non-annual given the C14 dating, and also the correlation of lakes on opposite sides of the globe (Lake Suigetsu in Japan and the Lake in Poland). Both lakes correlate well with each other, and the C14 dating would have detected non-annual varves.

quote:

---

You are not taking into account the bacteria that are consuming C-14 into their being. Its known that some anaerobic bacteria can assimulate the C-14 in the leaf into their being.

---

The study on Lake Suigetsu does not use anaerobic bacteria to date the varves, the study uses leaves. It doesn't matter which part of the leaf is eaten because C14 is spread evenly throughout the leaf. Half a leaf will date the same as a whole leaf, as will 1/4 of a leaf, 1/8 of a leaf, etc. No bacteria goes eats only the C14, they eat C14 and C12 in the same ratios as are found in the leaf.Do you actually know how carbon dating works? It is becoming apparent that you don't.

quote:

---

Loudmouth, Were talking about bacteria taking C-14 out of the leaf before it converts to C-12. When you date your leaf you have less C-14 in respect to when the leaf consumed C-14. This would affect the ratio of C-14 to C-12.

---

No bacteria, including the one in the kerogen study, takes out all of the C14 and leaves the C12 behind. None. No known natural process, other than man made centrifugation, is able to differentially remove C14 from C12. Therefore, the bacteria, if they were totally made up of carbon from these leaves, would date to the same age as those leaves.In fact, this is how the scientists in the kerogen study were able to determine that the bacteria's sole source of carbon was the kerogen. Because the bacteria had the same C14/C12 ratios as the kerogen. If those bacteria were getting their carbon from other sources then they would be in disequilibrium with the kerogen.If you think I am wrong, then could you please show me a study where bacteria are able to sort C14 from C12 and only ingest one of them?Added by edit:Just thought of a holiday analogy. Let's pretend that a fruitcake is the leaf and you are the bacteria. Now, pretend that the bits of fruit-like candies in the fruitcake is C14 and the bread is C12. Now, if you eat half of the cake, does the ratio of fruit-like candy to the amount of bread change? Nope. Still the same because the candy is spread evenly throughout the loaf. The same for C14 and C12 in the leaf. The C14 is spread evenly through all of the carbon containing molecules and so the ration of C14/C12 stays the same no matter how much is ingested by anaerobic bacteria.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 05:23 PM

quote:

---

If these bacteria consumed both C-14 and C-12 there would be less of the original C-14 therefore your ratio is bogus.

---

There would also be less of the original C12, hence the ratio between the two is the same. Did you read my fruitcake analogy above? If you eat half of a fruit cake, does the ratio of bread to candy change or remain the same?Let's take M&M's. Let's pretend that it is a Christmas bag with only green and red M&M's. Now, if you eat half of the bag, do all of the red ones disappear and only the green ones are left behind? Of course not. You end up with half a bag of M&M's that have the same exact ratio of red to green as when you started.The bacteria eat the leaves in the same way, consuming C14 and C12 in the same exact ratios that are found in the leaf. Not only does C14 bubble away, but so does C12 in the same ratios as found in the leaf. The leaf gets smaller, that's it.

quote:

---

Your whole basis was based on the leaf C-14 and C-12 being bound.

---

It is bound, in the form of cellulose.

quote:

---

When the bacteria dies its C-14 / C-12 can be dissolved as the bacteria decomposes. The C-14 / C-12 as a carbonate could bubble up out of solution.

---

We are not dating the bacteria, we are dating the leaves. Also, who cares how much of the leaf that the bacteria eats. What is left of the leaf is what is dated, not what the bacteria consumes.

quote:

---

Which would explain the lower varves dating slightly progressively older, from a young earth perspective.

---

It does nothing of the kind. All that has been explained is your incomplete knowledge of chemistry.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 06:12 PM

quote:

---

We at least agree C-14 & C12 is bubbling away increasing the concentration in the above varve layers. It does appear that C-14 and C-12 are a bit different. C-14 is an extremely unstable isotope, while C-12 is not.

---

C14 and C12 are different, but not different enough for the bacteria to preferentially eat one isotope and not the other. The very fact that C14 is unstable gives us the ability to date the leaves. The instability of C14 is the very reason that carbon dating works.

quote:

---

Since we agree that C-14 & C-12 concentrations are increase in solution in the varves above. I'm suspecting that its being re-absorbed by hydrogen bonds onto the leaf surface at a different ratio.

---

Bzzz, wrong. The leaf and insect samples are treated to remove loosely bound debris from the samples. Also, the most likely form of carbon being released by anaerobic bacteria is methane which has very little to no reactivity through hydrogen bonds. Methane and other gases released by the bacteria would not react with the leaves in any way that would affect carbon dating.

quote:

---

I doubt there is anyway to test for hydrogen bonded carbon. Instead of carbon assimulated within the kerogens.

---

We are not talking about kerogen, we are talking about leaves. Also, the very study you cite does not claim that the bacteria were able to change the carbon date of the kerogen, so your claim is empty anyway.

quote:

---

The water in the varves would supply the hydrogen to bond to the kerogen particles surfaces. I'm suspecting they are not bonding at the same ratio they were absorbed while living. Do you have evidence that they would bond at the same ratio?

---

Do you have any evidence that waste products from bacteria bind to the leaves?

quote:

---

I however think the ratio might be more disrupted by Mooses senerio. If C14 tends to form carbonates, and C12 tends to form CarbonDioxide. Then this could disrupt the C14 to C12 ratio, by simple carbonate bonds to the surface of the leafs and other organics being dated in the varves.

---

Could you please support the hypothesis that carbonate binds to leaves within the varves in a way that prevents removal before the sample is dated?

quote:

---

The article said that it was thought kerogen carbon was bound, but this has now been proven false.

---

This is misleading. The article said that the carbon found in kerogen was not reentering the ecosystem. What they found was that the bacteria were putting the carbon back into the ecosystem by ingesting the kerogen.I don't know if you are admitting this or not, but this article on kerogen has no bearing on the dating of the leaves in Lake Suigetsu. So far you have yet to support your hypothesis that carbon dioxide or methane released by the anaerobic bacteria would in any way change the dates given to these leaves. You claim that carbonate is binding to the leaves, but as of yet I only have your conjecture as the sole piece of evidence.

quote:

---

What age were Adam and Eve when God created them?

​

Are you saying that the first trees didn't have rings?

---

I think what Ned is trying to say is that it is an untestable, ad hoc hypothesis that makes God look like a trickster. It makes it look like God gave everything an appearance of age in order to fool us. Do you think God is a deciever? I could claim that the world was made last thursday and all our thoughts and memories have been implanted. Could you prove me wrong? Nope.

quote:

---

You see mineralized fossils is not this because of the different fractionate carbonates. Why would not this happen in respect to your leaf in an environment that included different fractionates of carbonates.

---

Because the leaf has not gone through fossilization. The carbon within the leaf has not been replaced by carbonate from the environment. Also, you have yet to show if there is even carbonate forming to any degree in either of the lakes in the study. You have also failed to mention how these altered varves could match ice cores and tree rings to such a high degree.