Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 357 (346549)
09-04-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hughes
09-04-2006 5:27 PM


Re: Tree Rings -- your move.
But, unless you can discredit or disprove that one exists, then the model has to be taken as equal to the "God plays no part in this..." model.
Um, no. At least, not in science ... and this is a science forum, so we're talking about science. In science, you don't just walk in and throw up a model and get it taken on an equal footing with existing models. To be taken on an equal footing, yuor model must explain all the evidence at least as well ss the current model, predict new observations at least as well as the current model, and not involve adding any more complicating factors than the current model.
Including an omnipotent being who can change any observation or physical law at any time for reasons unknow to us is a termendous complciating factor, and totally inappropriate in a scientific model (whether or not such a being actually exists, which is a question outside the purview of science). I suspect that your "model" makes no predictions, and I also suspect that your "model" cannot explain all the observations without invoking an incredible number of ad-hoc miracles, such as creatures that never hibernate suddenly hibernating and never-observed or hinted-at vegetation mats loaded with animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hughes, posted 09-04-2006 5:27 PM Hughes has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 140 of 357 (374207)
01-03-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-03-2007 7:22 PM


Polonium Argon
Probably done by measuring potassium halos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:22 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:13 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 190 of 357 (393665)
04-06-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
04-05-2007 8:49 PM


Re: Correlations is the game
But one source mentioned that the 'pigs took it all' in that the correlation between radiometric dating didn't matter at that time.
I haven't read the paper yet and have no idea what they mean by "'pigs took it all'" but I will make these predictions:
Likely a confused reference to the KBS Tuff, in which the initial radiometric dates conflicted with the well-established dates of pig fossils found beneath it. A great example of real science in action; there were conflicting and unexpected results which were not buried but rather were extensively investigated and discussed in the literature until the issue was figured out. Not only were concordant dates obtained, the reasons for the discordant dates were discovered, and everything was replicated in different labs using different techniques (e.g. K-Ar, Ar-Ar, fission tracks).
And it's another example that the pattern of correlations is the elephant in the room that creationists can't address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 8:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 191 of 357 (393674)
04-06-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Reserve
04-04-2007 10:09 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
quote:
First, the history of the dating of the KBS Tuff reveals that no matter how careful a scientist is in selecting his rock samples and in performing his laboratory work, if he gets the wrong date for his rocks he is open to the charge of using contaminated material and defective methodology. The charges need not be proved.
Well, that's just plain false. Of course the question of contaminated material and/or defective methodology must be considered when dating methods don't agree ... but the charges definitely need to be proved. The KBS tuff is an excellent example of this.
quote:
Second, what normally happens in a fossil discovery is that the fossils are discovered first. Then attempts are made to date the rock strata in which they are found. Under these conditions, a palaeoanthropologist has a degree of control over the results. He is free to reject dates that do not fit the evolution scenario of the fossils. He is not even required to publish those 'obviously anomalous' dates. The result is a very sanguine and misleading picture of the conformity of the human fossil record with the concept of human evolution.
I really wonder how creationists fail to notice that claims such as these are disproven by the very material they are discussing.
A palaeoanthropologist has no control over who publishes dates, and there's no evidence of anyone trying to suppress dates. They are, of course, free to disagree; and the disagreements are worked out.
The dates were published. The fact that they didn't agree with other well-established dates was openly noted. Several groups investigated the situation over several years, publishing all their findings and beating on the problem until it was solved and the fact of mistakes in sample preparation was established beyond a shadow of a doubt and replicated.
quote:
In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins.
100% wrong. The pigs won. The elephants won. Potassium-argon dating won. Ar-Ar dating won. Fission track dating won. Once the constituents of the samples were completely understood and valid, well-defined, well-understood, and replicable sample selection and preparation methods were established, all the methods gave concordant dates.
The KBS Tuff is a mixture of old (pre-deposition) and new (at time of deposition) material. It's difficult but not impossible to separate the old from the new. Once that's done (and now that we understand the constituents we can objectively verify that it's been done properly) all the dating methods agree.
40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation
Fission track age of the KBS Tuff and associated hominid remains in northern Kenya
K’Ar age estimate for the KBS Tuff, East Turkana, Kenya
KBS Tuff dating and geochronology of tuffaceous sediments in the Koobi Fora and Shungura Formations, East Africa
And if you search Nature.com you'll find lots more, including lots of disagreements in the papers published before the ones I cited.
But you're ducking the issue. A few anomalies (even though most if not all of your "anomalies" are no such thing) are not that important in the big picture, although they make for interesting research. The issue that you and AIG and ICR and other creationists dare not address is the vast web of interconnected and consistent scientific facts, a part of which is the tens of thousands of consistent dates from all over the world by different methods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Reserve, posted 04-04-2007 10:09 PM Reserve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:53 PM JonF has replied
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 197 of 357 (393815)
04-07-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
04-06-2007 8:53 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Can you look up
F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226.
And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
I think I couldn't without spending $30; I don't have the access. It could probably be gotten from the MIT library for much less but that wouldn't be a text PDF, it would be a PDF of pictures of text. I have a couple of academic contacts I can try; hang on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2007 4:45 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 203 of 357 (394324)
04-10-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Reserve
04-10-2007 9:33 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples?
The community of scientists, after results are examined and understood and replicated.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown.
Ah, the old "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing" canard. Very popular, totally invalid.
I should not have written "complete understanding"; better I should have written "sufficient understanding". The dates were conclusive based on precise laboratory measurements and well-understood physics, chemistry, and geology. The dates fell out of the observations, and did not agree with some people's (e.g. Leakey) idea of the ToE. They were not massaged to fit with the ToE; they were investigated further because different methods gave different answers. We know why some investigators found anomalous results. The dates are conclusive because of all of physics, geology, and chemistry (and I mean all); the ToE doesn't really come into it. There's no significant errors in the later results unless everything we think we know about physics and chemistry and geology is wrong. Radiometric dating is correct because your computer works ... think on that until you understand.
Science does not try to account for possible future observations that may or may not agree with today's observations. All we got is what we have today (and we have one h*** of a lot of observations today) and the best theory that fits all those observations. YEC and Noye's Fludde do not even fit 1% of the observations.
But you are still avoiding the point. Say for the sake of argument that all the dates for the KBS Tuff are wrong. Heck, say for the sake of argument that all K-Ar dates are wrong. There's still an incredibly wide-spread pattern of agreement between different dating methods, including non-radiometric methods, that must be explained by any viable theory. If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash. It doesn't matter how many individual problem cases you can come up with (especially since most if not all of them are not problem cases); they're still nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern. This thread is for discussing the pattern; individual results are on-topic only insofar as they relate to the pattern. Denying that the pattern exists ain't gonna work; it exists. Claiming that a few anomalous results invalidate the entire pattern ain't gonna work; nothing is 100% known in science, but the pattern is 99.99999% understood (hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern, remember).
So what's your explanation of the pattern? Magic? Hundreds of thousands of coincidences that just happened to agree with mainstream science 99.999999% of the time but also gave wrong answers 99.999999% of the time? Something else?
If you think that future observations will overthrow mainstream science, fine. Admit you've got nothing and bide your time until those observations show up. Don't hold your breath; people have been looking for those observations for hundreds of years … 99.9999999% of what they've turned up flat-out contradicts YEC and Noye's Fludde. The remainder is unexplained by any theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM Reserve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2007 7:11 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 206 of 357 (394589)
04-12-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
04-06-2007 8:53 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226.
And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
Total of three PDFs sent to your Yahoo account ... let me know if you got them (or didn't).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 8:30 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 303 of 357 (502932)
03-14-2009 10:04 AM


Plenty of data online
Raw tree ring data, and links to analysis programs, is online at The International Tree-Ring Data Bank. No problem finding out about the statistical methods there!
Raw ice core data is available at The Ice Core Gateway, with references with which you can easily track down the analysis methods.
Ever so much more accurate than pictures!
Great graphs of data relevant to 14C dating and tons of references at CalPal - University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package: CALIBRATION DATA SETS (part of CalPal Manual and Help).
Cue next feeble excuse…
Oh, and:
I know this, because where I have been able to check into details in the journals (if you dig deep enough) the influence of the assumptions and philosophy are revealed.
Thanks for the laugh. We are experienced anough to see that you've never dug into any details in any journals; all you know your read on fourth-hand creationist websites.
If the investigator "believes" a sample falls in a certain age range, and it doesn't, then some exucse -- contamination, etc., geological activity, or other ad hoc assumption is made to dismiss the date.
Of course you don't have any examples.
The USGS has a dating lab at Menlo Park, California, that's been running for 40 years or more. It's had a state-of-the-art SHRIMP-II for years. Since that's a government agency, you can ask them for all their equipment records, or even demand them with a FOIA submission. Then you can cross- correlate the records of tests with publications and see what tests were run and not published. (If the evil USGS is redcacting the data, you'd see the suspiciously large equiment idle time). No need to thank me here, just acknowlege me in a footnote when you publish.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 313 of 357 (503006)
03-15-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites.
Sorry, sonny, I provided links that go straight to the sites containing the raw data. I'm not going to extract the hundreds of links to the data dfor you. Hint: at the tree ring site, click "List of tree ring data by title and investigator".
To understand and/or anallyze the data, you are going to have to invest some of your own effort. You think there's a problem with the analyses, you do the work rewuired to demonstrate the problems.
I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core.
At the links I provided.
I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches
At the links I provided.
But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.
At the links I provided.For example,. here's a link to a typiucal raw data file from the rtree ring page:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/...urements/southamerica/arge056.rwl
And the correlation stats:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/...nts/correlation-stats/arge056.txt
There's lots of thos files, from different invesstigators covering different samples. All linked to from the pages I provided.
All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments
I see that the author is a Wlat-Brown-continents-swooping-like-drunken-ballerinas loon. And he claims that all sedimehntary layers were formed during the Fludde, refrencing Berthault. That's all we need to conclude that it's BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 319 of 357 (503025)
03-15-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 10:11 AM


Lots of good data online
"Some" data is not good enough
Plenty of data at the links I posted. Of course, since you need to be linked directly to the raw data, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/measurements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 10:11 AM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 3:56 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 321 of 357 (503031)
03-15-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 3:56 PM


Re: Lots of good data online
The data for bristlecone pine is there.
All the data is there.
But this is all OT ... your job here is to explain why the different manstrem conclusion all agree. And a world-wide conpiracy an't gonna cut it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 3:56 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 325 of 357 (503042)
03-15-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
You asked for a link to the raw data. You got a link to the raw data. The mainstream argument is in the lirerature. You're trying to show a problem with the data. It's your argument. You prove it.
But for the sake of continuing the amusement, and since you're obviously too stupid to find your own butt with both hands tied to it, here's what you do.
Download itrdb_v504_usa_rwl.zip and unzip it. Use grep or equivalent to list files with the string "bristlecone" in them.
ETA; Whoops, the bristlecone measurements aren't labeled as such in the file. THey are at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/...ements/northamerica/usa/ca535.rwl.
You might want to read Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology
Edited by JonF, : Added as labeled

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:11 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 4:25 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 334 of 357 (503423)
03-18-2009 5:51 PM


Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 336 of 357 (503617)
03-20-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
The supplied data is perfectly adequate. Your statistical analysis is flawed. Please post the mathematical analysis of why your chosen method of analysis is valid and the various standard and validated statistical methods others use to analyse the data are not.
But please do so in another and more appropriate thread. In this thread, your posts should address RAZD's questions dealing with correlations. Tree rings correlate with 14C correlate with U-Th disequilibrium correlate with varves correlate with ice cores and on and on. . Any viable theory must explain those correlations. Is your "theory" able to explain them?
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 4:25 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 349 of 357 (503637)
03-20-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
hose back of the envelope calculations are perfectly valid to show that something is wrong with the tree ring conclusions
Unsupported assertion. Demonstrate your claim. With math, not handwaving.
In another thread.
Until then, the whole idea that tree ring dates correlate to an evolutionary timeframe is just propaganda.
The correlations between multiple independent measurements, that RAZD has documented, are observed data. By definition data is not propaganda. If you can't explain that data you have no explanation at all.
Edited by JonF, : most of my post disappeared!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024