Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 53 of 357 (368509)
12-08-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Confidence
12-08-2006 1:04 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
Hi Confidence,
Nosy is correct that anomalous 14C measurements do not address the age correlations with other methods. So even if there were no explanation for the background levels of 14C, you still have a problem. Why does 14C dating correlate with lake varve dating and tree-ring dating and glacier layer dating?
JonF noted back in Message 5 of the Carbon 14 in fossils? thread that there may be 14C production paths from other isotopes of carbon due to background radioactivity caused by the presence of radioactive elements in the ground such as uranium, thorium and radon. Diamonds are almost pure carbon, so neutrons from radioactive decay that strike the diamond have a high probability of striking carbon atoms, unless they go right through. But I wasn't able to find information on such production paths, and so I don't think it likely that 14C can be produced from other isotopes of carbon, not that we know of, anyway.
However, note that I said that diamonds are *almost* pur carbon. The reality it that diamonds often contain impurities. Coloration is the most obvious sign of impurities. Remember that the main production path of 14C in the atmosphere is from 14N, and guess what the most common impurity in diamonds is? You guessed it: nitrogen!
Nitrogen causes yellow coloration, so if the levels of 14C in diamonds are proportional to yellow coloration, then that's your answer. It would also expected that the 14C levels would be proportional to background radiation levels in the ground.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 1:04 PM Confidence has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 57 of 357 (368564)
12-08-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
One I started using "neutron capture" in my Google searches I started getting meaningful hits. One of the hits said that Chernobyl was probably producing 6 Ci/year of 14C via neutron capture by 13C in the graphite control rods. Is that very much?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 8:56 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 62 of 357 (368620)
12-09-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
12-09-2006 12:16 AM


Re: contamination trumps correlations
Charley writes:
Biological Contamination (anerobic gasing, humic acid colloidals resorting, including mineralizing the fossils being dated) all would naturally inflate lake varve correlations in the lakes correlated.
You're describing a mechanism by which contamination could cause lake varves to date older than they actually are. It isn't necessary to consider the specifics of your proposal because whether such mechanisms exist isn't the issue. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. For the sake of discussion in this thread it makes sense to grant the existence of such mechanisms.
The actual issue is how the variety of different mechanisms affecting the dating of tree rings, varve layers, ice layers, coral and radiometric dating could do so in such a way as to all correlate with one another.
In other words, you claim a biological contamination mechanism for lake varves, then you claim another mechanism affecting tree rings, another mechanism for ice layers, yet another mechanism for coral, yet another for radiometric dating, and all these different mechanisms have an identical end result that causes all the dating numbers to still agree with one another.
Please.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 12-09-2006 12:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 68 of 357 (368791)
12-10-2006 9:52 AM


While I think the details about lake varves and glaciers is interesting, I don't see what it has to do with dating correlations between them. Isn't Whatever just successfully distracting attention from the topic of the thread?
As near as I can tell, Whatever is saying, in effect, "Lake varves have these dating problems, glaciers have these other dating problems," but he isn't addressing how these widely different dating problems (were they real) could affect things in identical ways such that the dates still correlate.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2006 2:14 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 75 of 357 (368973)
12-11-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 10:01 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
You're not addressing the issue raised by this thread. Your excerpt claims that the varve layers are not actually annual layers, but many sub-annual layers. Other threads can address whether there is any evidence supporting this view, but this particular thread isn't asking whether there are mechanisms that might make young things date old. This thread is asking for the creationist explanation for why, sticking with lake varves, the varve layer counts correlate not only with carbon dating of the same layers, but also with other forms of dating such as tree rings, coral, and ice layers in glaciers.
If we focus just on the varve layers and carbon dating of those layers, if the varves actually represent sub-annual layers, then what caused the diminishment of atmospheric 14C in precisely the correct proportions to make a varve layer that's 1000 layers beneath another varve layer to date 1000 years older in nearly perfect correlation, within measurement and laboratory error, of course. This thread is seeking the creationist explanation for this and other correlations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 10:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 79 of 357 (369159)
12-11-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Charley writes:
Perhaps thats why they are not addressing it directly but addressing the problem uniformitists...
I think you mean uniformitarians, and there aren't any here. There aren't any anywhere anymore. It's a term from the 19th century, and it doesn't mean what you think it does, anyway.
Hopefully everyone from both sides of the debate is a "follow the evidence where it leads"-ist. Whatever the evidence says about a process, whether it indicates it was fast or slow, hopefully everyone will give the evidence the weight it deserves.
The AIG article you referenced raises questions concerning dating of glacier layers and it addresses the correlation issue. Perhaps someone here will take a close look at it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 122 of 357 (370395)
12-17-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by johnfolton
12-17-2006 10:13 AM


Re: Tale of Two Charts
Hi Charley,
I'm going to guess that you're completely in the dark as to why you've drawn an administrative warning. Here's the situation as it looks to me.
It seems to me that you're not responding to what people are saying. For example, in Message 114 Ringo pointed out that your source is describing a time before 55 million years ago, not 10 or 20 thousand years ago. You replied, "I agree they indirectly dated the time from the sediments in the arctic..."
The problem with your reply is that it completely ignores what Ringo pointed out, that your own source is talking about a time more than 55 million years ago, and dates that old can only come from radiometric dating, so they were not "indirectly dated from the sediments".
In other words, your posts are like you're having a conversation with yourself. It doesn't matter what anyone says, your posts always say the same thing.
This thread is about correlations between the dating methods. Unless you can begin to focus on the topic and respond to what people actually say then you'll likely continue to have trouble with board administration. It has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, only whether you're following the Forum Guidelines. These are the rules I think you're not following:
  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Just trying to help.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2006 10:13 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2006 11:36 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 126 of 357 (370607)
12-18-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by johnfolton
12-17-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Tale of Two Charts
Hi Charley,
Jar just reminded me of something important that I had forgotten: you're actually Whatever. There's no way of knowing for certain why you participate in the way you do, but since I'm only a participant in this thread I'll leave Forum Guidelines issues up to moderator team.
NO this is not true unless you can prove that the sediments were dated by radiometric dating. Sediments are at times indirectly dated by the critters that are found within the sediments.
You are correct, but I was responding to what you said, which mentioned "sediments" not indicator fossils.
The point you're missing is that the lake varves we're talking about in this thread are from the last 10 to 20 thousand years. The sediments mentioned in your link (Page not found - Green Diary - A comprehensive guide to sustainable hacks, green tips, and eco suggestions) are from around 55 million years ago and were not dated by counting layers. That article has nothing to do with this thread.
This thread is about how the various independent dating methods all agree with each other, and how creationists explain this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2006 11:36 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2006 9:25 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 139 of 357 (374162)
01-03-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:16 PM


Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
JesusFighter writes:
The problem is not the dating methods, known as Radiometric dating and Polonium Argon dating.
Please tell me more about this Polonium Argon dating.
--Percy
PS - Oops, RAZD is right, it's off-topic. Please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25] and tell us all about this Polonium Argon dating.
Edited by Percy, : Add PS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:16 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 01-03-2007 8:53 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 143 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:14 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 214 of 357 (430917)
10-28-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 1:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Hi Elhardt, welcome aboard!
I think you're probably misinterpreting RAZD's post. For example:
Elhardt writes:
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)- recently updated to 650,000 years
Being extremely liberal and taking the maximum possible depth of ice at 2 miles thick and your first number, you end up with 40 years of annual ice per foot, or one year adding only about 0.3 inches. If it's 900,000 years as the post above states, it gets worse. You're now at about 0.15 inches added per year. The problem is that appears orders of magnitude too small and contradicts other things I've seen.
Although you're responding to Message 1, at least some of what you're replying to comes from Message 205:
RAZD in Message 205 writes:
  • Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
RAZD's post is providing various minimum ages of the earth indicated by different evidence, because obviously the earth cannot be younger than the oldest evidence. The 422,776 year figure comes from the Vostok ice core, the 650,000 year figure comes from a different ice core (RAZD doesn't say which one), the 740,000 year figure comes from the EPICA ice core, and the 900,000 year figure is an estimate of the total age at EPICA had they been able to obtain a core all the way to the bottom.
For example, on one documentary I was watching, some scientists dug down about 6 feet into the ice, and they were pointing out that you could see the yearly layers as the sun shined through the ice, and it was about 9 inches per year. They also said the ice at that place was about 4000 feet deep. A simple calculation gives you an age of about 5333 years. So a problem may appear on your end, not on the YEC's end.
Ice accumulation rates vary widely around the globe, plus snow does not turn to ice until under great pressure, usually at least a few meters. Ice cores brought up from great depths expand once relieved of the pressure. If you can remember where the scientists in that documentary were working we can look up things like accumulation rates relative to other areas around the globe and figure out what's going on.
Who says one band in an ice core equals one year anyway?
This thread is actually about correlations. One of the reasons we know the bands correspond to years is the way some of the bands can be correlated with significant global events, such as volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Vesuvius.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Remove P-38 comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 1:39 AM Elhardt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 217 of 357 (431022)
10-28-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by johnfolton
10-28-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
Given the evidence is that Siberia had a temperate climate only thousands of years ago then Greenland was green and the ice varves only thousands of years old.
The paper (14C Dating of Pear and 18O-D in Ground Ice From Northwest Siberia) says nothing about a temperate climate in Siberia (indeed, the word "temperate" doesn't even appear in the paper), and the conclusions from the paper disagree with you, saying that while summers were warmer, winters were colder:
Conclusions from the paper writes:
The new 14C dates from peat profiles at Seyaha, Shchuch’ya and Labytnangi indicate that: 1) the vegetation patterns within the tundra regions in the Early Holocene differed considerably from the present, in this period forest migrated far to the north in the Yamal Peninsula, 2) summer warming caused foresting of tundra, 3) simultaneously, the winters were colder and the climate was more continental than at present, 4) rapid peat accumulation (4-5 m per 1000 years) occurred during this period, and, 5) simultaneously with the peat accumulation in summer, freezing and formation of syngenetic ice-wedges took place in winter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 7:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 10:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 222 of 357 (431099)
10-29-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by johnfolton
10-28-2007 10:20 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
The important message is, however, the high mean growth rate observed, which gives information about the warm summer climate in the Holocene Optimum.
I thought your "important message" was that a warmer Siberia had to mean that Greenland was melting during that period and could not have been accumulating ice layers.
Your position is not supported by that article, which only says (and I'm summarizing) that Siberia experience greater extremes of temperature during this period. Whatever implications that might entail for Greenland are not clear, but the evidence from the Greenland ice cores is what you would look to for evidence of either accumulating or melting ice layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 10:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 224 of 357 (431124)
10-29-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by johnfolton
10-29-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
In the same part of the link as the Berezovka Mammoth it talks of temperate plants and warm weather animals all jumbled together within the Artic Circle along the same latitude as Greenland all around the globe.
So if regions at the same latitude must have the same climate, that must mean that Barcelona, which is at roughly the same latitude as me here in New Hampshire, but must get at least several feet of snow a year. And that London, roughly 800 miles further north, must get many feet of snow.
But of course, London doesn't get much snow, and I doubt that it ever snows in Barcelona, so there goes your theory that equal latitudes mean equal climates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 12:53 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2007 1:54 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 268 of 357 (449153)
01-16-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Creationist
01-16-2008 7:48 PM


Re: why do so many creationists lie if creationism is true?
Creationist writes:
The problems of radiometric dating are well documented. How much evidence of showing that something is wrong do you need?
There's no scientific evidence casting doubt on radiometric dating.
Again, that is incorrect. Either an intentional or unintentional lie? The theory of catastrophism, backed by experimental evidence that I have provided, still explains the geologic column more effectively. Of course, one has to have a different presupposition to see it, which explains why you reject it.
Catastrophism was once the theory of choice, but when 18th and 19th century geologists gathered and analyzed the evidence they were forced to reject catastrophism.
Perhaps Plaisted could have worded it a little better, but in a nutshell, the general theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of life by naturalistic means.
You could both have worded it a little better. Evolution relates to the origin of species. Abiogenesis relates to the origin of life.
I haven’t seen a lie yet, but perhaps you can explain why you feel the need to try and divert attention away from the real issue?
I decry accusations of lying from any side in this debate. It places motivations instead of evidence at the forefront of discussion, and it distracts from the topic.
If it was, then you might have a point, but it isn’t. The real deception comes from evolutionists who try to define evolution as mere change over time.
There have been entire threads devoted to defining evolution, and no one has advocated so simpleminded a definition.
A correlation that is based on the assumption of long ages to begin with. All ice core "dates" are derived by calibrating the various methods to the uniformitarian theoretical system. Just like the tree ring dating and lake varves. And just like varves and tree rings, ice sheets can form very fast.
The correlations are not based upon "uniformitarian assumptions." Independent dating methods yield closely correlated answers, providing enormous confidence in their accuracy.
The question for you and the other uniformatarians on here, is how do you determine which ones were formed quickly and which ones were not? I have yet to see that explanation.
The question for you is how quickly formed layers could be identical to those formed slowly. Once reason, among many, that we can be so confident that layers form slowly is because rapidly formed layers have a much different character. Lake varve layers have sublayers that reflect the seasons. The layer count correlates with years determined by carbon dating. Tree rings form across the passage of seasons and contain a period of growth and non-growth. Ice layed down quickly would appear as a very thick layer, not as many layers, since it takes the passage of a warmer period to consolidate the previous winter snows into a layer that appears distinct from adjacent layers.
In 2005, research concluded that glacial ice should be reduced from 8 million years to as low as 43,000 years.
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
The abstract says they were dating till (unconsolidated earth and rock heaped into piles by the movement of glaciers), not glacier ice. They argue against previous interpretations that the till is older than 8.1 million years. That article is not about ice layers, nor even about the age of the ice, though they say that some of their data should provide age constraints for the ice.
How do you know what the ecological growing season was for the area of the Bristlecone pine 10000 years ago? Uniformatarian assumptions being applied?
The term uniformitarianism isn't current within modern geology, and hasn't been for a long time, probably because the term is so easily misinterpreted as meaning constant and gradual change, but the principles live on. Geology assumes that the same array of forces and processes that can possibly act on our planet today have acted upon it throughout its history. The evidence, not assumptions, tell us whether any geological formation was formed rapidly or slowly.
RAZD writes:
No science eliminates all errors.
What do you mean? The science that discovered the polio vaccine eliminated all errors. The science that got man to the moon eliminated all errors.
That would be nice if it were true, but it's not. Polio vaccines increase the chances of children contracting polio. Three men died on the ground in a Mercury space capsule, Apollo 13 almost didn't make it back from the moon, and we've already lost two shuttles with their entire crews. So much for eliminating all errors.
Your post is too long, but then, so was RAZD's.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Creationist, posted 01-16-2008 7:48 PM Creationist has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 343 of 357 (503630)
03-20-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Hi Daniel,
You provided this link to a PowerPoint presentation about the problems with tree ring and radiocarbon dating:
The presentation provided references to some of the claims, so I checked out the first claim that provided a reference from a legitimate researcher. This was on page 11 and here's the reference:
Yamaguchi DK.1986. Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.
The original paper can be found here:
The abstract from this paper indicates that your PowerPoint presentation has misrepresented its findings. The paper isn't an indictment of tree ring dating. It's about the necessity of applying certain types of analysis in order to obtain unambiguous results:
Yamaguchi's abstract writes:
Correlation analysis assumes that individual observations are statistically independent. Since tree-ring indices are typically serially correlated, cross-correlation coefficients computed between standardized tree-ring series may be spurious and inflated. To obtain valid estimates of these coefficients, ARIMA time series models should be fit to standardized series before cross-correlation analysis. ARIMA modelling was used successfully to obtain an unambiguous match between a "floating" series and a master chronology using program CROS.
We can go through the rest of your PowerPoint presentation one page at a time if that's what you would like to do, but the rest of the claims are no more likely to be accurate representations of science than this one, and you'll still have the problem that is the topic of this thread: if the wide variety of dating methods were really unreliable and in effect random, then how in the world could they ever be in such close agreement?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:27 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024