Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, vimesey (7 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6668
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 331 of 357 (503088)
03-15-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 4:55 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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 you brought it up why? Do you think you can just throw bullshit up and hope we don't catch you?

You seem to live with the motto.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit

You are all BS all the time.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:55 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 332 of 357 (503095)
03-16-2009 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Theodoric
03-15-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with

The Rothbard Article opposing Kondratief wasn't hard to debunk.


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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 3:59 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 333 of 357 (503168)
03-16-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Daniel4140
03-16-2009 12:24 AM


Denial is not an explanation.
So Daniel4140,

Are you going to deal with the correlations or continue to post irrelevant tidbits having nothing to do with the topic?

I take any failure to even attempt explaining the correlations as tacit admission that you have no explanation for them.

Thus the earth is old, and any belief to the contrary cannot explain all the evidence, including the evidence of correlations, for and old earth, and exists only by denial of reality.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


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 332 by Daniel4140, posted 03-16-2009 12:24 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


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


Bueller?
Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?


Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 335 of 357 (503614)
03-20-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by JonF
03-15-2009 4:50 PM


Got some data.... need more
quote:
ETA; Whoops, the bristlecone measurements aren't labeled as such in the file. THey are at North America Paleo Tree Ring Measurements.

You might want to read Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology


Good link. So there is some data. I looked at four matches from ca. 1700 B.C., and did a few tests. First for the 'matching' sections I subtracted the ring withs to produce a difference table. I then found the average difference, and then the mean. Here is the start of the data for MWK001 and MWK002 cross match.

-1754 17.69%
-1753 Median 13 Avdif 2.3
-1752 MWK001 MWK002
-1751
-1750 15 21
-1749 13 17
-1748 14 22
-1747 12 18
-1746 16 27
-1745 16 21
-1744 14 13
-1743 15 15
-1742 20 22

This just a back of the envelope calculation. I did the same for a match in the last 500 years with similar results. Here is part of the data:

1616 26.25%
1617 Median 16
1618 Avdif 4.2
1619 MWK832
1620 18
1621 11
1622 0
1623 22
1624 13
1625 21
1626 4

Then I took this same section and deliberately missmatched it against another section. Here is the result:

Random Control Test #1
18 8.98 49.89%
22 3
14 18
14 5
19 1
11 1
22 3
2 27

The average deviation from the median ring width goes up to 49% of the median. I then performed the same tests on linkages between 4000 B.C. and 2000 B.C.

Test 1: 61%
Test 2: 79%
Test 3: 99%
Test 4: 47%
Test 5: 51%
Test 6: 49%
Test 7: 48%
Test 8: 45%

This was good enough to convince me that the whole statistical method of cross matching is highly subjective. The critical matches before 2000 B.C. seem to be no more than white noise.
I have also determined that it would be fruitless to continue the investigation of the linked file for the following reasons, which can only be remedied with more data, i.e. the critical data that has so far been withheld, just as I before alleged. Here is a punch list:

1. A file listing the radiocarbon dates of each 10 year ring segment. I understand that there are 500 such datings. Further, that the data show the original error ranges in the 14C dates for each 10 year segment.
2. A file with a series of control tests, in which random segments are matched as closely as possible from wood known to be of non-matching dates, with all the same statistical tests, so that the validity of the other "matches" and their statistical results can be fairly jugdged against the control.
3. A file containing the record of all the places that the dendrochronologiests inferred a missing ring. I undestand that this is the case about 5% of the time.
4. I have "heard" that radiocarbon dates on the inner rings of a sample date earlier than the outer rings of the same sample. I need to know the diffusion rates for 14C and 12C through the tree over time. If such dates differ, then we need the 14C data for various points in 4000 year old living trees as well.

Please link the data, or cite its source in the published literature. I will be happy if either proves to be geniune to whatever extent for the long White Mountains Bristecone (8700 year) Chronology.

I have read the AIG Woodmorerappe article. I disagree with John's quick rubber stamping of the statistical results on the basis that I have been unable to find a control test on a non-matching sample, plus have read allegations of others who have done just that with non-confirming results.

Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.


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 325 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 4:50 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 5:20 PM Daniel4140 has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


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 responded

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

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 337 of 357 (503619)
03-20-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by JonF
03-20-2009 5:20 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Those back of the envelope calculations are perfectly valid to show that something is wrong with the tree ring conclusions. And without the control experiements I mentioned tree ring "science" isn't science at all. It's no better than water divination. This is perfectly on topic. I'm saying there is no valid statistical correlation if you put it up to a control. So where is your control? Where is the data to support it?
Until then, the whole idea that tree ring dates correlate to an evolutionary timeframe is just propaganda. The following PPT explains why "extending" bristecone pine beyond the time of the flood is not science:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt

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 336 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 5:20 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:49 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:58 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 349 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:45 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 338 of 357 (503621)
03-20-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
quote:
1. A file listing the radiocarbon dates of each 10 year ring segment. I understand that there are 500 such datings. Further, that the data show the original error ranges in the 14C dates for each 10 year segment.
2. A file with a series of control tests, in which random segments are matched as closely as possible from wood known to be of non-matching dates, with all the same statistical tests, so that the validity of the other "matches" and their statistical results can be fairly jugdged against the control.
3. A file containing the record of all the places that the dendrochronologiests inferred a missing ring. I undestand that this is the case about 5% of the time.
4. I have "heard" that radiocarbon dates on the inner rings of a sample date earlier than the outer rings of the same sample. I need to know the diffusion rates for 14C and 12C through the tree over time. If such dates differ, then we need the 14C data for various points in 4000 year old living trees as well.

Please link the data, or cite its source in the published literature. I will be happy if either proves to be geniune to whatever extent for the long White Mountains Bristecone (8700 year) Chronology.


14C doesn't "correlate" if the tree ring matches are random and invalid.


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 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:15 PM Daniel4140 has responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 339 of 357 (503623)
03-20-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
06-11-2006 7:15 PM


Your Data is Bogus
8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)

See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt

37,930 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
... corroborated to 45,000 years by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)

quote:
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 lakes—where most lake deposits occur. Liquefaction best explains these varves.

... from www.creationscience.com


110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
- recently updated to 250,000 years

See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt

422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
- recently updated to 650,000 years

See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt

567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites


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 15 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 7:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 342 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 PM Daniel4140 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 340 of 357 (503624)
03-20-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
14C doesn't "correlate" if the tree ring matches are random and invalid.

So why do they?

What is the mechanism that makes them correlate if your analysis is correct.

Your problem is not just to show that there could be error, but why that particular error for each and every layer and no other?

According to your simplistic analysis the 14C dates should be all over the map. They aren't, therefore the logical conclusion is that your method is what is wrong.

Why don't you try the method used by dendrochronologists? It's relatively simple, and there are several examples available to help you to use it properly.

4. I have "heard" that radiocarbon dates on the inner rings of a sample date earlier than the outer rings of the same sample. I need to know the diffusion rates for 14C and 12C through the tree over time.

Try zero. Next try to track down your source of this anecdotal evidence. You ask for access to data and then provide this for rebuttal?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : r


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 338 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:49 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 341 of 357 (503628)
03-20-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 6:04 PM


Why do they correlate?
Your Data is Bogus

So why do they correlate? Without answering that question, everything else is irrelevant.

Again, all you have is proposals from creationists for why individual systems could possibly be in error, and that if they were true that then there should be no correlation, instead the data should be randomly scattered.

Your section on varves is totally irrelevant, because it does not deal with the kind of varves in Lake Suigetsu. You've already been told this - why repeat your mistake? See Message 243, Message 329 and Message 330.

Why do the Lake Suigetsu layers correlate for depth, 14C and diatom\clay layers?


Click to enlarge

Why the correlations Daniel4140? Why does an exponentially diminishing isotope correlate with linear age when converted mathematically based on the radioactive decay rate of 14C, and why do both varve layer and 14C decay age each have a kink at the same place for a change in the rate of deposit for the layers?

Why this three-way internally consistent correlation?

See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt

See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt

See: See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt

Not one of your sites explains the correlations.

Calling it bogus does not make it so, you need to demonstrate why the correlations are a result if they are bogus.

I'm going to assume, that because you just post these websites with no commentary, that you lack any understanding of them, yet take them at face value.

Now explain the correlations.

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 339 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 6:04 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 350 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 342 of 357 (503629)
03-20-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Your Data is Bogus
The RATE group was put together to study the issues of radiological dating methods to discover the obvious flaw missed by scientists brainwashed with old earth assumptions.

The RATE group spent much donated money to come up with a plausible radiological model that supports a young earth. Note that they could not do so without invoking the supernatural. Even with this invocation they were left with a "major problem" that they can't seem to find a resolution to. The "fact" that radioactivity isn't "good". I guess we all have our Goliaths to do battle with..

The RATE group suspects that large amounts of radioactive decay occurred during the first three days of Creation as part of the supernatural Creation process. The jury is still out and, until we complete our research phase, this concept is only hypothetical. The presence of supernatural "process" during Creation is essential to our approach, however.

The implications of "process" during Creation are much deeper than at first might be thought. If a radioactive "decay" process occurred rapidly during Creation and continued more slowly thereafter, how is it possible for God to say at the end of the sixth day, "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31)? The assumption when saying this, of course, is that radioactive decay is inherently "bad". The RATE group does not have an adequate response to this criticism yet. We will need to address this theological issue further as we conduct our research over the next few years.


One wonders what research over the period of years, all generously funded by Christian donations, will bear upon an answer to a supernatural question/dilemma.

reference
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

Another coincidence that runs against the young earth model is the lack of short lived radioactive isotopes in the earth which correlates with all the other evidence presented here. This data conveniently fits an old earth model but requires yet another ad hoc explanation from YECs.

reference
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/woody_origin_of_iodine_henke.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 6:04 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:40 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


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:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt

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:

http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf

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 responded

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

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 344 of 357 (503632)
03-20-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:15 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
First off "correlations" are not exact matches. If you look at the ring data, "correlated" rings have wildly different widths. Second, there is so much white noise in the data that matches are possible at multiple points. That's the reason that tests need to be done with random control data.
I am writing a paper on this, so you need to give some good answers.


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 340 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 345 of 357 (503633)
03-20-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Percy
03-20-2009 7:58 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Percy,
I don't care what you think about that PPT presentation. The cited paper's findings are relevant to the validity of Ferguson's work.
I saved that paper. Thank's for the link.

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 343 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 03-21-2009 2:54 AM 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