Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:29 AM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,543 Year: 3,580/19,786 Month: 575/1,087 Week: 165/212 Day: 7/25 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
sl33w
Member (Idle past 3809 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 271 of 357 (470118)
06-09-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
06-11-2006 7:15 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
"Mathematics is the most exact science known to man."

The "Beginning of Time" (Genesis 5.1) was in 4148 BC.

The "Flood" was in 2492 BC.

This has been determined by "grade school math" and by "grade school reading comprehension."

For this reason, five of us have very close conclusions.

A) Barnabas, 2ns century, "creation was about 4,000 years before Christ."

B) Bishop Ussher, 1300s, "creation was exactly 4,000 years before Christ, being in 4,004 BC."

C) The "false Prophet," William Miller, AD 1843; about 4,000 BC.

D) Sidney Williams, 2006, 4148 BC was the "Beginning of Time" (Gen 5.1).

A & B & C had confused the "Beginning of Time," when Adam was chased out of the garden of Eden (Gen 5) with the Creation.

But here are four grmmarians and mathematicians pretty much in agreement.

In the deep, deep Dark Ages, the Beast and the False Prophet dated the Exodus from Egypt to have been about 1359 BC.

The gramarians concluded about 1635 BC.

Carbon-dating agreed with the deep, deep Dark Ages.

sl33w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 7:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
angelarose20 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3757 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 09-08-2008


Message 272 of 357 (480964)
09-08-2008 6:20 AM


spam removed
author banned

Edited by AdminNosy, : spam


  
CarlZienaTo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 273 of 357 (501647)
03-07-2009 9:35 AM


Can Age Dating methods works without error. what it the some rings are caused by termites or, heat, water, animals. and how did they count it(sorry i don't know what method)?

The Oldest tree they said is is about 4000-5000yrs old.(Prometheus)
"Rates of coral and coral reef growth have been studied by a number of investigators. Chave, Smith and Roy (1972) have analyzed some of the findings of other investigators and suggest net rates of growth of 0.8 to 26 mm/year. The net growth rate of a reef is the combination of total carbonate production less carbonate losses by biological, chemical and physical factors. Odum and Odum (1955) suggest a growth rate of 80 mm/year. Smith and Kinsey (1976), using an analysis of the CO2 system in seawater, suggest growth of 2-5 mm/year. Adey (1978) feels that this figure is too low for Atlantic reefs that must grow 2-3 times faster.
The figures given above contrast sharply with some figures based on actual soundings of reefs. Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year(about 1/4 meter in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes. This latter figure would allow for the development of the 1405 m of the Enewetak reef in less than 3400 years.The fastest growth rate reported for any coral is the staghorn species Acropora cervicornis . Lewis et al. (1968) found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year(about 1/4 meter a year). Shinn (1976) studied the growth of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He estimated linear growth rates of 100 mm/year".

Edited by Christbearer11, : I forgot to put some more.


Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Coragyps, posted 03-07-2009 10:26 AM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded
 Message 275 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 10:42 AM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 1:44 PM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 274 of 357 (501656)
03-07-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CarlZienaTo
03-07-2009 9:35 AM


Can Age Dating methods works without error?

Of course not. Any measurement has some error - that's why the roofers bring a couple of extra squares of shingles when they redo your roof. The errors, though, can be rather astoundingly small, as RAZD showed in wonderful detail early in this thread. A recent example of this sort of dating accuracy is in the 16 January 2009 issue of Science (Garrick-Bethell et al.,, vol 323, pp356-359):

{Apollo mission sample}76535 was found in a rake sample from the ejecta blanket of a 10-m-diameter impact crater (21). Four different chronometers (U/Pb, Th/Pb, Sm/Nd, and 40Ar/39Ar) yielded indistinguishable ages of 4.2 to 4.3 billion years (2226). Its Rb/Sr age is less certain because of spurious effects associated with olivine separates, ranging between 4.61 to 4.38 Ga (24, 27).

the footnotes are from various labs:

22. J. C. Huneke, G. J. Wasserburg, Lunar Sci. VI, 417 (1975).
23. G. W. Lugmair, K. Marti, J. P. Kurtz, N. B. Scheinin, Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 7, 2009 (1976).
24. W. R. Premo, M. Tatsumoto, Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 22, 381 (1992).
25. L. Husain, O. A. Schaeffer, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2, 29 (1975). [CrossRef] [ISI]
26. D. D. Bogard, L. E. Nyquist, B. M. Bansal, H. Wiesmann, C.-Y. Shih, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26, 69 (1975). [CrossRef]
27. D. A. Papanastassiou, G. J. Wasserburg, Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 7, 2035 (1976).

So yes, the rubidium-strontim date is "in error" - it says those moon rocks are nearly 10% older than the other four methods agree on. And tree rings can err, too - but when you get the same answer from trees in Germany, trees in Finland, lake-bottoms in Japan, and stalagmites in Nevada, you have to sort of assume that you aren't too far off on that answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CarlZienaTo, posted 03-07-2009 9:35 AM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 275 of 357 (501659)
03-07-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CarlZienaTo
03-07-2009 9:35 AM


Correlations
You haven't quite grasped the point of this thread yet Christbearer11;

Note the word "correlations" in the title. Suggesting that any one method may be wrong doesn't help your case at all. If you think the methods are wrong you have to show why they give answers that agree with each other and do so over and over with very different methods.

For a simple case:

Centuries ago geologists worked out the relative ages of rock strata by looking at which one was on top of another. Then 60 years ago the radio dating methods were used and they agreed with the relative order. How is that?

Other cases of correlations are in this thread. Your comment "Can Age Dating methods works without error." doesn't touch the question of agreement between the methods at all.

Of course, there are errors in any measurement made. That is why it is particularly valuable to have independent methods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CarlZienaTo, posted 03-07-2009 9:35 AM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 276 of 357 (501695)
03-07-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by CarlZienaTo
03-07-2009 9:35 AM


As the title says, it is about correlations that validate the information
Hi Christbearer11, and welcome to the fray.

Can Age Dating methods works without error. what it the some rings are caused by termites or, heat, water, animals. and how did they count it(sorry i don't know what method)?

Curiously scientists actively look for sources of error so that they can identify when and how they bias data. For instance, with tree rings, there is a strict methodology to taking measurements from several locations in each tree and comparing between trees in different locations, so that when all the data gives the same results you have a high degree of confidence in the data.

There are, for instance, two trees of approximately the same age, "Methuselah" and "Prometheus" and one ("Prometheus") was cut down in 1964 -- while still living -- to verify the tree ring count, and it has been compared with the cores taken from the other.

The way chronologies are constructed from different trees is to compare the ring patterns and match them up -- this too identifies possible errors.

There are three entirely different and independent tree ring chronologies that stretch out to over 8,000 years, and the disagreement in age between the oldest count and the youngest count for the comparable rings is 44 years -- that's about a 0.5% error.

The European oak chronology carries this out to over 10,429 years, now with even less error between it and the German oak chronology that now extends to over 12,400 years. These chronologies will continue to increase as they find and add older specimens to the data bases.

You can read more about how tree ring counting is done and errors are accounted for (plus and minus) at this website, where the information is provided by an actual scientist who does this work.

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

This is also an excellent slide show that details the methods
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm

No scientist will tell you there are no errors in their methods, what they will tell you is how they have looked for sources of error and what their degree of confidence is in the result from an evaluation of all possible errors, ie with the Bristlecone Pines we have an age of the oldest ring in the (so far complete chronology) of ~8,000 years +/- 22 years.

"Rates of coral and coral reef growth have been studied by a number of investigators. ...

Please note that it is considered good form to include your sources of informations when you quote material verbatim from websites, etc, and that it is good practice to differentiate quotes from you own words.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

... and suggest net rates of growth of 0.8 to 26 mm/year. ...

Which is why linear growth is not used to measure age, instead some way of measuring actual intervals is looked for: either annual growth patterns (that exist in corals as well as trees) or records of historic events (volcanic eruptions, etc) that are embedded in the growths.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CarlZienaTo, posted 03-07-2009 9:35 AM CarlZienaTo has not yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3559 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 277 of 357 (502712)
03-12-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by NosyNed
03-07-2009 10:42 AM


Re: Correlations
quote:
Note the word "correlations" in the title. Suggesting that any one method may be wrong doesn't help your case at all. If you think the methods are wrong you have to show why they give answers that agree with each other and do so over and over with very different methods.

I simply don't believe most of the "data" being put out by laboratories. The only data I feel compelled to believe is data obtained in an investigation where qualified creationists are "in" on the investigation details. 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. The so called "correlations" are little more than propaganda.
Also the samples submitted to the laboratories undergo a sort of Natural Selection. 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. So if the investigator does not swear that all the dates sampled are in the journals, then how can we be sure of the experimental "control" for the data. We can't. The journals don't think they need a control, because they've already decided that the rejection of the discrpeant dates is justified a priori on the theory that the rocks are old anyway.
If evolutionists want to convince creationists of an old earth using legitimate means, then since they are in control of the publications, they are obligated to PROVE that there is no bias. When they can demonstrate that they are not guilty of propaganda, then we might consider their claims.
Meanwhile, I and other creationists in the small sphere where we have personally investigated a matter to the bottom have found that the evidence comes down on the side of a young earth.
I would certainly not believe ANY claim of any evidence on a board like this until it was thoroughly vetted to an unambiguous conclusion of the actual evidence.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2009 10:42 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-12-2009 9:45 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 282 by Peepul, posted 03-13-2009 9:15 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 329 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 8:08 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 278 of 357 (502713)
03-12-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Daniel4140
03-12-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Correlations
Hi Daniel,

How much interpretation is there when counting tree rings? and varve layers?
That's all it takes to get us back 40,000 years.
Not much room for error or misinterpretation in measuring annual layers of ice either.
That takes us back 650,000 years.
That is sufficient I think to disprove a young earth from a biblical perspective..

But if you really want to crack open that mind of yours join me here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM shalamabobbi has responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3559 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 279 of 357 (502731)
03-13-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by shalamabobbi
03-12-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Correlations

The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review:

quote:
Claims are frequently made that tree-ring thickness patterns of wood growing today can be matched up with those of some scattered pieces of dead wood, so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed long chronologies begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods.6 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then, the more questionable links are made based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes missing rings are added.7 Each tree rings width varies greatly around the trees circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could show how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring thickness patterns fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.8 Even less reliable techniques claim to be able to calibrate carbon-14 dating back 26,000 years or more.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ22.html

Also, the ice flow models for GRIP and other cores are flawed. Here the problem is the model assumptions and the interpretation of the results.

quote:
Ice flow modeling assumes an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions of years. So, old age is automatically built into the ice cores. Deep-sea cores also have oxygen or deuterium isotope fluctuations. Ice cores are simply wiggle matched to the deep-sea cores, which are then dated by correlation to the astronomical theory of the ice ages or the Milankovitch mechanism, reinforced by radiometric dating of certain key points, called reference horizons.16 The whole enterprise is one big exercise in circular reasoning, sometimes called the reinforcement syndrome.17

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1228ice-cores.asp

quote:
7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm), which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe that time can be measured. The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, a classic varve region, contains billions of flattened, paper-thin, fossilized fish; thousands were buried and fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish. [See Figure 7 on page 11.] Obviously, burial was sudden. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake for years, would decay or disintegrate long before enough varves could bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, deteriorate, and then sink.) Most fish fossilized in varves show exquisite detail and are pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as if they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.

Also, varves are too uniform, show almost no erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakeswhere most lake deposits occur. Liquefaction best explains these varves.


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction6.html

Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact". However, my own testimony is that when it is possible to examine the supposed "facts" that they fall apart, and I present the conclusions of other creationists to encourage people to do their own examination. If it is honest, I believe they will find on the level of their own experience this to be true, provided they resist "group think" and don't fall into logical traps.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-12-2009 9:45 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 3:17 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 281 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-13-2009 3:32 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 283 by kbertsche, posted 03-13-2009 10:53 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 12:51 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Coragyps, posted 03-13-2009 1:15 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 286 by NosyNed, posted 03-13-2009 1:18 PM Daniel4140 has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 280 of 357 (502735)
03-13-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Garbage in, Garbage out
Daniel4140 writes:

Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact". However, my own testimony is that when it is possible to examine the supposed "facts" that they fall apart, and I present the conclusions of other creationists to encourage people to do their own examination. If it is honest, I believe they will find on the level of their own experience this to be true, provided they resist "group think" and don't fall into logical traps.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, instead of relying on an unquestioning devotion to the likes of AIG and ICR. One thing about tree rings, ice cores, varves, stalagmite layers, and so on is that they can be counted using one or even two eyes and simple addition. The simple fact that they all correlate with each other and to every other available scientific method of age determination is not enough to saddle up that triceratops and do battle with the GE and Vesta windmills that have been sprouting up around here like the progeny of a rabbit warren.

Sancho Panza here says you need more than Ken Ham and Morris inheritance to overturn all physics, chemistry, geology, biology, linguistics, history, and common sense. Provide your evidence beyond PRATTs or be prepared to get burned.

Am a bit busy to properly participate beyond this basic criticism, I leave the patience and through explanation to RAZD. However, if you are still around after my mom's estate gets fully probated, I'm sure we will meet again.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 7:05 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 281 of 357 (502736)
03-13-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact".

Hi Daniel,

I am wondering why you did not respond to the thread I linked to. How do you explain ERV patterns that occur randomly to be the same in different species, specifically chimps and humans? I think this evidence alone trumps all other evidence in favor of evolution.

I think when you look into data you must be in the habit of "not viewing" the argument of the evolutionist since they are on "the opposing side". The scientist does not have this issue with "who's claims can be trusted" since the data can always be revisited and evaluated anew by anyone and an unbiased conclusion reached.

There are rather strong rebuttals to your claims. I will offer some. But the problem which this thread addresses is IF your arguments are correct, then why the agreement between different physical techniques of dating? The model you present for C14 with a time clock starting 6,000 years ago modified by a flood would cause C14 dating to come into disagreement with tree ring dating and varve dating. Older varve layers would be C14 dated much older than that which is found to be the case. Or if they were not annual layers they should have all the same C14 date at least much closer than what is observed.

This is where the creationist model fails. When you make individual objections and propose a mechanism that explains away one fact, the proposed explanation is discarded when the next fact is explained away with some other technique. The explanations are inconsistent with one another and fail to agree. That is why they are ad hoc in nature.

You offer the 6,000 year old starting clock for C14 but the observed varve deposits with the observed C14 variation agrees with the standard geologic model. However it is not explained at all by your proposed model. Let me agree with your C14 assumptions and accept it without debate. How next do you explain that the varve layers vary as though C14 dating by the geologic model assigned each layer to one years time? Your model would require deposition that greatly exceeds annual initially, and then gradually/smoothly varied towards an annual deposition.
Do you see the issue here.

You are guilty of compartmentalized thinking in attacking and finding fault with each geologic fact, without making those faults you find harmonize with each other.

Liquefaction does not explain varve deposits.

quote:
Take a closer look at those bedding planes. On many of them you will find tracks, trails, burrows, and borings. In other words, extensive evidence for bioturbation. These prove that, for some minimum amount of time, each bedding plane remained exposed at the sediment-water interface, with organisms burrowing through the sediment, crawling across its surface, and so forth. The borings are particularly important because they clearly indicate that the sedimentary substrate was hardened after deposition but before the boring. On other bedding planes, you might find successive layers of mudcracks, or sandstone foresets with raindrop impressions. On other bedding planes ('hardgrounds'), you will find a whole ensemble of organisms preserved *in situ.* In these cases, it can be said confidently that one layer was deposited, sedimentation stopped, the sea-floor hardened, and was then colonized by organisms which bored into the surface and *then* grew to adult size. This clearly refutes Brown's proposed scenario.

ref
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pflood.htm

Here is an explanation of the fossil "problem".

quote:
Decay is slowed dramatically in conditions of anoxic water. In other words, there is virtually no oxygen at the bottom of the lake, and thus other living organisms could not reach the bottom of the lake to scavenge the carcasses. This is what we see with the bog people. When you throw in the two additional variables of oxygen level and scavenger population, the young earth theory clearly does not pose a threat to the standard geologic explanations.

ref
http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm

I'll leave the rest for now and come back later if no one else answers first..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3094 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 282 of 357 (502773)
03-13-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Daniel4140
03-12-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Correlations
Meanwhile, I and other creationists in the small sphere where we have personally investigated a matter to the bottom have found that the evidence comes down on the side of a young earth.

Can you give us some examples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 283 of 357 (502794)
03-13-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
quote:
The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review

I don't believe this is accurate. The central laboratory in the US for tree ring chronology is the Dendrochronology Lab at the U of AZ. Years ago, The folks there told me that they DO open their data to others, including many YECs who had visited and tried in vain to find technical problems with their chronology.

Since you don't believe that either tree rings or varves can be counted accurately, how do you explain their close agreement? In the calibration curves from each, we can see "wiggles" due to radiocarbon production variations. These wiggles match fairly well between the two records. And the calibration curves are within about 15% of the simplistic assumption that the radiocarbon production rate has always been constant at its recent value. This is strong evidence that the "years" obtained by counting tree rings and varves are the same lengths, and that they can't be much different from real calendar years. How do you explain these agreements?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 284 of 357 (502805)
03-13-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review:

Last I checked the Bristlecone pines are still there out in the open just waiting for someone to take core samples. Why don't creationists construct their own dendrochronologies and measure the 14C concentrations themselves? If the two data sets disagree then the creationists can raise a stink.

Also, the "dead wood" overlaps the living trees. This is done by comparing the thickness of the rings which form a very unique "bar code". This is due to annual variations in moisture and growing conditions.

Also, the ice flow models for GRIP and other cores are flawed. Here the problem is the model assumptions and the interpretation of the results.

If they are flawed then how is it that historically dated volcanic eruptions can be found in the correct layers? And if they are flawed how is it that the data from the ice cores matches both the tree ring denchronology and lake varves?

7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm), which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes.

For Lake Suigetsu, the layers are marked by alternating layers of diatoms. These are consistent with annual blooms during the warm months. Also, for the 14C calibration they measured the 14C concentration in insect and leaf debris from these layers. How does a flood produce alternating layers of diatoms and then sort leaves and insects by minute differences in their 14C content? That makes zero sense. Not only that, the lake varve data correlates with both tree ring and ice layer data. It is this consilience that you must explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 285 of 357 (502809)
03-13-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
If it is honest, I believe they will find on the level of their own experience this to be true, provided they resist "group think" and don't fall into logical traps.

Walt Brown is a master at falling into those sort of traps....have you read the section of his book where he talks about where asteroids came from? His "facts" are as far from the realm of the possible as any fantasy could be.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019