Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
188 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 186 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,203 Year: 20,239/19,786 Month: 636/2,023 Week: 144/392 Day: 4/53 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 316 of 357 (503012)
03-15-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by kbertsche
03-15-2009 6:11 AM


No good data online
quote:
A number of scientific papers relating to radiocarbon calibration (matching radiocarbon ot tree rings, varves, speleothems, etc) are here:
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume46/Number3/

The paper starting at page 1029 provides a good overview. The one starting at p. 1093 details the statistical methods that are used. The one starting at p. 1111 gives some details of tree rings back to ~12,000 years.


"Some" data is not good enough. "Overview" is just another word for your "generalized" conclusion. I read the abstract on the 1093 article. Statistics yes, but not the one's that go with the 8000 year tree ring chronology, just a generalized mathematical analysis of 14C calibration curves. Where are the photo's of the rings, the measurments of rings matching before 4000 B.P.?
Evolutionary propaganda normally begins with the conclusions, and expects us to believe them based on their aura of "scientific" authority.


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 310 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2009 6:11 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 1:26 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 317 of 357 (503014)
03-15-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Richard Townsend
03-13-2009 3:44 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with

"I don't understand your methodology"

My reply to that question seems to have gone astray. Maybe I hit preview only and did not post it?

1. First construct biblical chronology without regard to sabbath year synchronisms.
2. Find all the allusions to sabbatical years, or the places where they should be in the chronology.
3. Test to see if they all fall into one cycle.
4. Give the odds of this happening by accident. The odds of a 7th year being correct by accident are 1/7 and a Jubilee 1/49.
5. Multiply them out 1/7 * 1/7 * 1/49 .... etc, and you arrive at the figure of 1 < 10^50 probability of chance.

That's my proof that treering and ice core "chronologies" are bogus. My research is easily verified. It is not obscure like the data for the tree ring stuff. No fancy math either.

One more correlation. The age of the "Methuselah Tree" i.e. 4600 years DOES work out to the time of the flood, when the first new trees began growing. What is the probability of that agreeing with the biblical date for the flood?

Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.


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 291 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 3:44 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by cavediver, posted 03-15-2009 10:30 AM Daniel4140 has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1955 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 318 of 357 (503016)
03-15-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
4. Give the odds of this happening by accident. The odds of a 7th year being correct by accident are 1/7 and a Jubilee 1/49.
5. Multiply them out 1/7 * 1/7 * 1/49 .... etc, and you arrive at the figure of 1 < 10^50 probability of chance.

So if this is all true, you have demonstrated that the chronology you have constructed is internally consistent? Well done. You do know that consistent bullshit is still, well, bullshit? :laugh:

That's my proof that treering and ice core "chronologies" are bogus.

Yes, I'm quite sure it is :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 10:20 AM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:11 PM cavediver has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5529
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 320 of 357 (503030)
03-15-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by JonF
03-15-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Lots of good data online
quote:
422 1 HERRING ALPINE
422 2 AK, USA WESTERN HEMLOCK 943 6026N14745W 1422 1972
422 3 FRITTS 08 23 73

That how the first file under USA opens. No one ever constructed an 8000 year chronology with this species. You need bristlecone pine. I want the data for brislecone dead wood before the 4600 year old "Methuselah" tree. The link you supplied gives data for trees all over the world and all variety of species. I'm not disputing the vast majority of the data, just the data you are using to make the argument on this thread. You guys are putting up the argument. YOU have to prove it. Where is your data!
I already posted mine proving yours wrong.


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 319 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 1:26 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 3:59 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5529
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


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 yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 322 of 357 (503032)
03-15-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by cavediver
03-15-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
The raw data for the chronology comes from the BIBLE. I have to take it as I find it. I can't change it to fit the cycles. So since seven year cycles and 49 yeear cycles fit EXACTLY for century after century, the probability calculation against it being an accident is valid.

Further, I also have some paper's on my site citing the synchronization of the cycles with the Kondratieff waves.

Did you ever hear of the "Pinching Theorem" in Calculus? Well, my research pinches the range of valid tree ring dating between 2484 B.C. and the present. Ditto for ice cores.

And I'm still waiting for a direct link to the 8000 year old data based on bristlecone pine. I'm beginning to wonder if it is really mythical data.

quote:
The data for bristlecone pine is there.

Then link it dirrect. I'm not going to pussy foot around with 100's of files. It's your argument. You prove it.

Edited by Daniel4140, : To answer another post at the same time

Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.


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 318 by cavediver, posted 03-15-2009 10:30 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 4:37 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 325 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 4:50 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 327 by cavediver, posted 03-15-2009 4:56 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 330 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 8:58 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 323 of 357 (503037)
03-15-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Answering the question
Where did you supply the creationist communities answer to the correlations between dating methods?

Your post doesn't seem to answer my Message 286 at all. Did you have trouble reading it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6783
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 324 of 357 (503040)
03-15-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Actually since it is published scientific evidence.(Whether you want to believe it or not), it would be up to you to look at the data and disprove it. That is why science has peer review. It means if someone disputes it the disputer needs to provide scientific evidence that in turn can be peer reviewed.

No matter what evidence you are given you will claim it is not enough. It is the same with transitional fossils. If there are 10 steps in the transition and we have step 3,5,8 and 9. You will claim that we have no transitional fossils because there is no step 2,4,6 and 7. Then when we have all the steps you will demand step 3.5.

Sorry OT stuff here
Kondratieff waves are not a hard and fast thing. It is a theory about economy ups and downs and is not a set # of years. A Kondratieff wave can last 45-60 years according to the theory. That is a pretty large fluctuation. How the hell can you synchronize to anything to the large of a potential spread
(I assume you interpreted them anyway you wanted to)?
Also this theory is far from widely accepted.
See here

Let us then look more closely at the long contraction, or "long depression," phases of the Kondratieff cycle. To make any sense, they should in some way look and feel like depressions, like grim periods of decline in business activity. The first Kondratieff long depression was supposed to be the period 1814-1849. But these thirty-five years were by and large a period of great expansion, prosperity and economic growth for the United States, England and France, the three countries Kondratieff used for his statistical analysis. And what of the second Kondratieff depression, the period 1866–96? Was that in any sense a depression? For the United States, and to a large extent for Western Europe as well, this was the period of the most dazzling spurt of production and economic growth in the history of the world. Production and living standards skyrocketed. How in the world could three such glorious decades be called a period of secular decline?

Obviously, it is absurd to call these periods long-wave depressions. The point is that in real terms – production, activity, growth, employment – these "Kondratieff depressions" were all periods of gigantic growth and prosperity. The only sense in which the two nineteenth-century "Kondratieff contractions" were contractions at all is that prices, by and large, fell during those decades. And that is that.

But if only prices fell, while all real or physical units increased, this means that the Kondratieff contractions could only be considered depressions if we define periods of falling prices as depressions or declines in economic well-being. And here we have one of the many fundamental fallacies of the Kondratieff doctrine.

You are just a troll that thinks he has found an ingenious way to spam us with his website. I don't feed trolls and hope others here will stop feeding you too.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:55 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 332 by Daniel4140, posted 03-16-2009 12:24 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5529
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


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/pub/data/paleo/treering/measurements/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 responded

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

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 326 of 357 (503043)
03-15-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Theodoric
03-15-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Hey' thanks for the lewrockwell link. I always disliked Gary North's "econonimcs" because he believes in unregulated captialism. But the biblical chronology actually depends in no way on the kondratieff wave. It is constructed only with biblical data. I only noted the match with the K-wave later. So, no you cannot dismiss the argument by casting doubt on the K-wave, which "doubt" is itself in doubt. I'll read that article.


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 324 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 4:37 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 10:17 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1955 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 327 of 357 (503044)
03-15-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
The raw data for the chronology comes from the BIBLE. I have to take it as I find it. I can't change it to fit the cycles.

Yes, but these cycles come from the Bible!!! Even assuming you have done all that you say you have done in identifying these sabbatical and jubilee years, all you have done is shown the Bible is at least consistent in its own chronology. SO F'ING WHAT? Even if true (which we seriously doubt) then it is merely interesting. It demonstrates that the varied authors of the Old Testament managed to get their dates in order. Your probablity calculations are irrelevant meaningless nonsense.

Further, I also have some paper's on my site citing the synchronization of the cycles with the Kondratieff waves.

:laugh: how can you synchronise against something that has no definite time period???

Did you ever hear of the "Pinching Theorem" in Calculus?

I'm a professional mathematician - the pinching theorem is used for determining limits of functions. This has NOTHING to do with any of your research, tree ring dates, and ice cores. All it shows is you are just one more internet crank with no clue...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:11 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 328 of 357 (503057)
03-15-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by anglagard
03-13-2009 3:17 AM


Sorry to hear
about your loss anglagard,

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.

I thought it was difficult dealing with my parents house burning up, but they have survived, have relocated to temporary housing and now are looking forward to rebuilding one of their design, and the only losses were material items, the stuff you are dealing with I guess.

Condolences, no matter how inconsequential words are.

RAZD/paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 3:17 AM anglagard has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 329 of 357 (503065)
03-15-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Daniel4140
03-12-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Correlations
Hi Daniel4140, and welcome to the fray. Seems you have contributed to a burst on this thread while I was away, so I am just picking up some bits and pieces at this point. Note that threads are often closed after 300 posts, so don't be surprised if there is notification that this will occur.

I simply don't believe most of the "data" being put out by laboratories.

You are free to believe whatever you like, however you should also be aware that your opinion has absolutely no effect on reality. What you are dealing with is cognitive dissonance - confronting evidence that contradicts pet beliefs - with the first level of response being denial of the contradictory evidence.

As shalamabobbi has already pointed out, it doesn't take much effort to count simple layers to arrive at ages for the earth that are contradictory to a young earth model.

The only data I feel compelled to believe is data obtained in an investigation where qualified creationists are "in" on the investigation details.

This is confirmation bias - only looking at information that you agree with.

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.

Yes the old "all scientists are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to hide the truth" rationalization that is the second response to cognitive dissonance.

Do you really believe all science is make believe fabrications?

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.

Sorry, the shoe is on the other foot. Scientists work to a very strict protocol of peer review, and the only thing you need to do is present a study based on sound scientific process, show evidence for your conclusions, and demonstrate that your conclusions follow from the evidence. Not being admitted for publication does not mean bias against an idea but bias against unscientific work.

If you want to show that the scientific consensus is incorrect then you have to do the work and the onus on proof is at your feet. This is the way science works in all fields.

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.

Which, curiously, is why references are provided. You are free to pursue the actual evidence in the articles mentioned, and if that is not sufficient you can contact the authors, tell them they are liars, and then ask please can you see their evidence.

Notice that you have just admitted making a judgement before seeing the evidence.

Message 279

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.

Then you haven't talked to a dendrochronologist. Try Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, he was quite friendly when I emailed him about some questions I had.

For the record the oldest trees on record:

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm

quote:
The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6).

Notice that they are talking about two trees, "Methuselah" and specimen WPM-114 which has since been named "Prometheus" so you are short by several hundred years and by one tree.

The "Methusulah" specimen was sampled (by boring) in 1957, the estimated germination date is 2,832 years BCE, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,841 years (in 2009 ... and counting).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) for further information.

The "Prometheus" specimen was was 4,844 years old when it was cut down in 1964. This is a minimum as the core of the tree had eroded away, and this gives a latest germination date of 2,880 BCE. By this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,889 years (in 2009 ... and counting).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) for further information. Notice that the stump still exists (albeit weathered) so it should be possible to take many detailed photographs and do the counting yourself. It's only at the top of a mountain in the sierra nevadas.

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

Always good for a chuckle. Can you show me where that 12C "spike" from vented subterranean waters is on this chart?


Click to enlarge

Notice that this data is only from dendrochronology at this point. There is no break in the data. There is no spike. We can also look at the same kind of calibration curve from Lake Suigetsu:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187

quote:

Click to enlarge

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

Notice that the green line is the same as in the previous chart, while this one extends the data out to 45,000 years BP (which means before 1950 - don't ask me why, it's just the convention used for 14C dating).

Can you explain the correlation between tree rings, 14C and lake varve layers?

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

Usually they don't allow you to just quote from other websites without offering your own interpretation that shows you understand what they are talking about, but you are new.

Curiously, I saw no reference to Lake Suiketsu, which is a little unique in the way the varves are formed there: the layers alternate between diatom shells and clay, the shell are deposited during the summer and early fall months when there is an annual diatom "bloom and bust" growth pattern, while the clay is deposited year round, but only during the winter and early spring months does it accumulate enough to cover the diatom shells.

Interestingly, bits of trees and insects also get deposited in the depths of the lake and covered by these layers, so we can correlate the counted annual layers with the 14C/12C ratios and ages.

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.

Now we get AiG. In the meantime you have forgotten the critical element here - correlations.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

quote:
The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event [Dansgaard et al., 1989] because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 1300+/-70 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an ~7ºC rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at ~11.64 kyr BP [Alley et al., 1993] (Figure 2).

This date for the Younger Dryas comes from the GISP-2 ice core data. Now look at this bit of data:

Message 243
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
quote:
RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The 14C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.


Draw a vertical line through 11,000 years and compare that to where the kink in the line occurs. A major change in climate at the same time that the rate of accumulation of sediment in the lake occurred.

Why do the tree ring ages correlate with the 14C data?

Why do the lake Suigetsu varves and 14C data correlate with sediment depth?

Why do the 14C data from the trees correlate with the 14C data from the lake varves for the same ages?

Why do all three correlate with climate patterns for ring width and amount of 14C? Why do the ice core layers correlate with the climate for the periods covered by the tree rings and 14C?

Why does the major climate change in the ice core data correlate with the major climate change in the sedimentation rate in the lake?

As noted by shalamabobbi in Message 281 you need to explain the correlations. Poking holes in each individual dating method does not explain how the end up with the same dates.

Message 284

tag writes:

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.

And in the case of the bristlecone pines we have dead wood that overlaps and extends the data to over 7000 growth rings lying on the ground in the same groves as the living trees.

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Images2.html

quote:
These trees located in Methuselah Grove are on a steep slope and in an area where trees reach 3000 - 4000 years of age. Very old trees are typically squat and gnarled, with many dead branches and large areas of exposed wood. In this grove, scientists have found several pieces of deadwood lying on the ground for more than 7000 years!

How do you explain the overlaps in data?

Probably enough for now.

Enjoy.


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 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 330 of 357 (503076)
03-15-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with - in other words disregard reality?
Hey Daniel4140, you won't get many warnings here when you are advised to avoid specific offtopic issues

The raw data for the chronology comes from the BIBLE. ...

And if the age of the earth were truly young you would not need a book to tell you so.

It is easy to find evidence of younger parts of an old earth, but it is impossible (be definition) to find older parts in a young earth, so how can you explain the older parts?

Consider this little piece of logic: if the age of the earth is young then you should be able to demonstrate:

  1. exactly how old the earth is. Current YEC "ages" vary by over 200%.
  2. exactly why each annual counting method used in this thread is in error
  3. why that erroneous result exactly matches the erroneous results in the other annual counting measures
  4. why all those erroneous results exactly matches the radiometric ages
  5. why all those radiometric methods produce erroneous results
  6. why all those erroneous radiometric results exactly match all the other radiometric ages and the annual counting ages
  7. demonstrate why the earth cannot be older than "X" days

I'm still waiting, after three versions of this thread running to over 933 total posts so far, and I have not yet seen one reason for one correlation. Not one.

So put down the book and the bluster and get to work. The data is there, and if it isn't in the first page cited it should be listed as a secondary link.

Focus on the concept of correlations. For reference I repeat this chart from Message 329:


Now pay attention, there are three things correlated here: lake varve layers (alternating diatoms and clay), sedimentation rate (changing significantly at the time of the last significant change in climate), and the carbon-14 age of the layers.

Note that the C-14 age is a result of mathematical conversion from the actual levels of 14C and 12C in the samples and that to explain this match you have to explain how an exponential function such as radioactive decay could match this actual annual age pattern so precisely by some other mechanism.

Exponential curves look like this:


Click to enlarge

While the varve layers are linear rates with age: How did that "kink" occur in the 14C age at just the right place to match the varve data

Enjoy.


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 322 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:11 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019