|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Biological Contamination (anerobic gasing, humic acid colloidals resorting, including mineralizing the fossils being dated) all would naturally inflate lake varve correlations in the lakes correlated.
Gases from anaerobic digestion would sort upwards in agreement with a natural inflated dates(C14 transport). Saying no anaerobic digestion takes place in the absense of oxygen would be what you would have to be saying for contamination not to be trumping correlations in the lakes correlated. It doesn't take much to cause inflated dates when the carbon sink (organics are digesting)is sorting C14 via carbon dioxide upwards including carbonates reactions and those catalzed by the humic acids that have the affinity to form colloids that could sort based off pressure and density (anaerobic gassing reduces density) via anaerobic digestion processes. The increased pressures in an aquifier its the water that naturally press the particles apart. This simply physical law allows for transport of gases upward with increasing depth, dual porosity includes micro movement of solutes that are all apart to cause a proportional sorting of the ratio of carbon with inflated values. I agree in advance that the colloids clays formed by humics acids likely would slow (plugged)slowing the C14 and other gases migration upwards, causing values of the correlations to be inflated downward proportionally with non-random numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Charley writes: Biological Contamination (anerobic gasing, humic acid colloidals resorting, including mineralizing the fossils being dated) all would naturally inflate lake varve correlations in the lakes correlated. You're describing a mechanism by which contamination could cause lake varves to date older than they actually are. It isn't necessary to consider the specifics of your proposal because whether such mechanisms exist isn't the issue. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. For the sake of discussion in this thread it makes sense to grant the existence of such mechanisms. The actual issue is how the variety of different mechanisms affecting the dating of tree rings, varve layers, ice layers, coral and radiometric dating could do so in such a way as to all correlate with one another. In other words, you claim a biological contamination mechanism for lake varves, then you claim another mechanism affecting tree rings, another mechanism for ice layers, yet another mechanism for coral, yet another for radiometric dating, and all these different mechanisms have an identical end result that causes all the dating numbers to still agree with one another. Please. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree in advance that the colloids clays formed by humics acids likely would slow (plugged)slowing the C14 and other gases migration upwards, causing values of the correlations to be inflated downward proportionally with non-random numbers. This has been refuted before Charley, Bret, Craig, johnfolton, tim, tom, The Golfer, ... whatever (did you get a medal for the most user names yet?). You still need to deal with the clay layers being annual layers that give the same ages as the biological samples: thus positing contamination of one does not refute the result of the other and the correlation between them - what it shows is that contamination is NOT an issue. The data from the lake also correlates with other data for age and climate, both in the tree rings and in the ice layers. How can it do that with contamination in one system being the answer? How can they all be wrong in exactly the same way, time and amount? Maybe it's time you looked further than Lake Suigetsu, seeing as you seem to have a hang-up here. Look at the layers from the ice cores - north, south and inbetween. Start with the low latitude ice cores are from the Peruvian altiplano, a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Rising over it is the Quelccaya ice cap with a summit elevation of 5670 m and a maximum summit thickness of 164 m. Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) This is a slide showing the marked bands on the ice in South America, alternating dust layers with ice layers:Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) From the slide description:
quote: Quotes from later slides:
quote: These cores don't extend to the time of the tree ring data, but they correlate with the climates in those rings, specifically with "the little ice age," and they also correlate with the climates in the other two ice core data fields. The next ice core is from the Dunde Ice cap in tibetPaleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) quote: And matching up to the dates for Lake Suigetsu ... and the climate pattern. They correlate age with climate, with ice, with clay & diatoms and leaves .... Then go on to the two big core data sets:
They also correlate with the climate for Lake Suigetsu to match the ages due to annual layers there and the 14C data. Then they go on to much greater ages. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added little ice age info, Dunde Ice core info we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, is this contamination? Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Radioactive decay is an exponential decay curve, not a constant rate over time. The effect of contamination and background levels is an additive error - it can cause high readings, but not low readings, thus making things appear younger than they really are - but it adds the same error to any sample. If we have two curves, one "clean" data and one "contaminated" data, they would look something like this (with the "contaminated" one above the "clean" data curve) There is the same vertical displacement at any point between the curves, where the y-axis is the amount of 14C and the x-axis is the time for decay.
At t ~0 we have error = ~1/10 of clean data At t ~1/2 we have error = ~1/3 of clean data At t ~1 we have error = ~3/2 of clean data -- more error than clean data. This delta between the curves is intentionally exaggerated here to make the point. The point is that the error induced by contamination and background levels is low initially, so the age data result is reliable. But certainly by the time you have reached point {1} above you have more error induced by the background radiation and contamination than you have available data, and the method is unreliable at that point because of that fact. The point where the method becomes unreliable is based on the difference between the curves and the amount of error one is willing to put up with ... perhaps somewhere around 10% (using real delta curves not these exaggerated ones) Does that make the issue a little clearer for you? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : pasted rest of post, formating we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The glaciers that remain are melting in the upper northern-most third of the globe which shows the ice age closed approximately 11,000 -12,000 years ago. We're getting closer to the biblical correlation of 5400 years ago, but the scientist are now mentioning that the glaciers formed 11,000-12,000 years ago.
I find this interesting as the glaciers melt the peat bogs in the northern most hemisphere area's of the globe are not dating hundreds of thousands of years old but carbon dating around 11,000-12,000 years ago. If trees were growing 11,000 to 12,000 years (creation day 3) ago then it correlates to the bible (if one day is as a thousand years in genesis), etc... The peat bogs certainly are not correlating to an old earth, thus somethings amiss in the ice varve inflated correlation data. -----------------------------------------------------------------The UCLA-Russian Academy of Sciences team found no peatland dates earlier than about 16,500 years ago, suggesting that no large northern peatland complex existed before that time. Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded. http://www.Sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/10/061012183530.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Ice varves annual interpretation too like lake varves appear inflated only because the uniformitists belief in an old earth. With all the glaciers melting exposing the peat bogs in the northern hemisphere all dating younger, its refreshing to see scientists admitting peat bogs no evidence that any are older than 16,000 years old. ------------------------------------------------------------- Are there 110,000 annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet?The claimed 110,000 annual layers in the GISP2 ice core to near the bottom of the Greenland ice sheet is not a straightforward deduction. The annual layers, indeed, show up well near the top of the ice sheet. However, the situation becomes much more complicated deeper down in the ice sheet. Essentially, the uniformitarian scientists must make assumptions for the bottom and middle portion of the ice sheet in order to determine the annual layers.
Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
its refreshing to see scientists admitting peat bogs no evidence that any are older than 16,000 years old. That is because that area was covered by ICE 16,000 years ago - vegetation to form peat won't grow beneath an ice sheet.
[qs]The lack of basal dates older than about 16.5 ka suggests that there was no extensive peatland complex in the northern circumpolar region during the LGM (Fig. 2). This finding is corroborated by palynological data that indicate a paucity of Sphagnum (peat moss) spores from deposits of this age (15). Before 16.5 ka, much of the North American and European arctic and subarctic were still covered in ice, and it is likely that the large ice-free areas of Siberia and Beringia were too cold and dry (16) to promote extensive peatland development. This absence of any significant northern peatland complex during the LGM is consistent with the depressed CH4 levels and the relatively low proportion of northern CH4 sources observed in ice-core records (Fig. 3).[/q] From the paper your link refers to - Science 13 October 2006:Vol. 314. no. 5797, pp. 285 - 288 Edited by Coragyps, : add reference
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You do have fun don't you?
Either you don't understand much relevant here or you are intentionally twisting this information for the fun of it.
I find this interesting as the glaciers melt the peat bogs in the northern most hemisphere area's of the globe are not dating hundreds of thousands of years old but carbon dating around 11,000-12,000 years ago. The UCLA-Russian Academy of Sciences team found no peatland dates earlier than about 16,500 years ago, suggesting that no large northern peatland complex existed before that time. Last time I checked 16,500 was not between 11,000 and 12,000 years. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
quote: That doesn't make the peat dating problematic eh? The glacier scrapes the surface ahead of it, piling it into moraines, and when that Last Glacial Maximum retreated it allowed the peatland complex to invade the area left by the retreating glacier at that time. Subsequent deposition of snow that becomes ice over those areas from snow-pack accumulation and the like would bury those peatland complexes without scraping them into moraines, as glacier movement would do. And your article does not talk about the peatland complex forming earlier than had been previously thought but later:
quote: Are there 110,000 annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet? More. Only 110 have been counted. From the original post on this thread:http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf quote: The antarctic ice is now dated\counted to 650,000 years. And the climate data correlate between the two for the ages in discussion here.
Ice varves annual interpretation too like lake varves appear inflated only because the uniformitists belief in an old earth. You are missing the point: it is the same age in both ice cores and in Lake Suigetsu and the same climate -- they correlate. They match. And by doing so they validate each other. Not matching would invalidate the concept. Different entirely different annual layer counting systems, dependent on totally different processes for making the layers, getting the same ages and the same climate patterns. You can't just hand wave "inflated" and "uniformitist" over this data and not explain why they have exactly the same apparent ages AND climates. That's not an explanation of the data but a denial that it contradicts your beliefs. Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, it is delusion:
quote: If both system ages were due to errors those errors should be from different causes that would make different errors in the ages and climates. The ages AND the climates should not match if they were due to errors. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
While I think the details about lake varves and glaciers is interesting, I don't see what it has to do with dating correlations between them. Isn't Whatever just successfully distracting attention from the topic of the thread?
As near as I can tell, Whatever is saying, in effect, "Lake varves have these dating problems, glaciers have these other dating problems," but he isn't addressing how these widely different dating problems (were they real) could affect things in identical ways such that the dates still correlate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Isn't Whatever just successfully distracting attention from the topic of the thread? Not as long as we keep coming back to the correlations.
While I think the details about lake varves and glaciers is interesting, ... Whatever is saying, in effect, "Lake varves have these dating problems, glaciers have these other dating problems," but he isn't addressing how these widely different dating problems (were they real) could affect things in identical ways such that the dates still correlate. I'm not sure he understands (or chooses to understand) the basic difference between these systems of measurement. He is essentially saying that 14C can diffuse up and distort the record. The problem is that this is a linear function, and can only distort another linear function by changing the slope. The diatom\clay layering system is quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of annual deposition of clay and diatoms. The 14C system is exponential decay - the amount lost each year is less than was lost the year before, being based on a fraction of the amount in existence each year. What he needs to change is the straight line (from layers) to the curved line (from radioactive decay): ... in order to "explain" the age of the Lake Suigetsu data as showing ages that are much older than he wants it to be. The Ice Core layering data is also quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of ice\annual accumulation. Conversely the layers that measure the climate changes are NOT linear or curved -- they ARE a ratio between stable isotopes of 18O atoms and 16O atoms trapped in the ice when it was formed: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html
quote:(some conversion of text for readability) So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age. There is no "diffusion" of 14C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of 18O in the Lake Suigetsu data. Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : added formula we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
That is because that area was covered by ICE 16,000 years ago - vegetation to form peat won't grow beneath an ice sheet. The creationists believe the earth was not yet created 16,000 years ago, that too would account for the lack of vegetation. The answering from genesis people link said the uniformitists made assumptions for the mid to lower snow varves. Its like paleotologists assumptions of the age of a fossil based on the layer the fossil is found. The uniformitists need for an old earth appear why the ice varves correlate to lake varves, tree rings, etc... Its not a mystery why the correlations appear to agree(inflating non-random numbers till they agree). Climatics should have some agreement but the problem appears the mid to lower varves and the assumptions used to extrapolate. Ex vice president Gore is concerned about the glaciers melting at an alarming rate. However as the ice varves continue to melt due to the increased solar cycle of the last hundred years all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The answering from genesis people link said the uniformitists made assumptions for the mid to lower snow varves. That still leaves 50,000 years of straight annual layers with no assumptions to hand wave away. Or to accept that the world is really older than you want to believe it is.
The creationists believe the earth was not yet created 16,000 years ago, that too would account for the lack of vegetation. There is a lot of evidence of things less than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that does not invalidate an old earth. There is a lot of evidence of things more than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that DOES invalidate a young earth. The issue is not the evidence that you accept, but the evidence that you deny that contradicts your position.
quote: Its not a mystery why the correlations appear to agree(inflating non-random numbers till they agree). Climatics should have some agreement but the problem appears the mid to lower varves and the assumptions used to extrapolate. Again you have provided no mechanism for this "miraculous" correlation between extremely different and divergent systems ... see
Message 69 So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age. There is no "diffusion" of 14C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of 18O in the Lake Suigetsu data. Stating "it is not a mystery" does not take the mystery away.
... all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years. In that specific location, in spite of expecting to find it only 8,000 years old ... And they are finding rock that is much much older. Rock that shows the effects of scrapping by ice after being formed by geothermic processes. And it other parts of the world -- they are STILL finding evidence of life that is still much much much older. You are cherry picking tid-bits of information and ignoring the total body of evidence that refutes your position. Dodging the issue of correlations does not do you any good: the evidence is still there whether you {believe\understand\accept} it or not. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Charley (?) writes: However as the ice varves continue to melt due to the increased solar cycle of the last hundred years all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years. That's interesting, this article http://brent.xner.net/pdf%20files/Chile3FINAL.pdf claims that not only are there pollen grains and bacteria in ice cores from Greenland, Tibet, Antarctica, and Bolivia dating back 20,000 years (that the scientists have checked so far), but that, in the case of the bacteria, they are able to revive them and check their DNA. With further research, examination of such DNA may wind up being yet another example of support for evolution and an old Earth. Anticipating the next piece of YEC apologetics, how did the post-flood bacteria and pollen burrow several hundred feet from the surface to be discovered at that depth in the ice core?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... claims that not only are there pollen grains and bacteria in ice cores from Greenland, Tibet, Antarctica, and Bolivia dating back 20,000 years (that the scientists have checked so far), but that, in the case of the bacteria, they are able to revive them and check their DNA. Not only that but:
quote: There appears to be another correlation with layers and climate from another independent system to record climate information within the annual layers. There is also the matter of the pollen in correlating to climate. We know that pollen from a specific plant, the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, is a marker for climate change, and has the Younger and Older Dryas Periods named after it Younger Dryas - Wikipedia
quote: As noted in the main article, this period also shows up in the Lake Suigetsu climate data, even though the markers for climate in that system have nothing to do with bacteria or pollen. Pollen samples have been used before to study climate change, and now that there is a technique that can isolate pollen from ice cores without contamination, I expect more correlations to follow. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fixed paragraph order we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
With further research, examination of such DNA may wind up being yet another example of support for evolution and an old Earth. It could also become yet another example of support for Creationism and a young earth. How does one know that the bacteria are 20,000 years (couldn't open the pdf link), are you basing this off uniformitists ice varve dating? Here's a link showing the difference between uniformitists old earth and the creationists view of ice varves. ------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year. The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Grootes and Stuiver, 1997). A storm has a warm and cold sector with different measurements of the variables. These storm oscillations may be on the order of several days. These storms can produce problems in annual counting, even in the uniformitarian paradigm, as Alley et al. (1997, p. 26,378) state: “Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.” Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers. Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core. The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale. This is how they manage to ”squeak out’ 110,000 years.
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years?
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You're not addressing the issue raised by this thread. Your excerpt claims that the varve layers are not actually annual layers, but many sub-annual layers. Other threads can address whether there is any evidence supporting this view, but this particular thread isn't asking whether there are mechanisms that might make young things date old. This thread is asking for the creationist explanation for why, sticking with lake varves, the varve layer counts correlate not only with carbon dating of the same layers, but also with other forms of dating such as tree rings, coral, and ice layers in glaciers.
If we focus just on the varve layers and carbon dating of those layers, if the varves actually represent sub-annual layers, then what caused the diminishment of atmospheric 14C in precisely the correct proportions to make a varve layer that's 1000 layers beneath another varve layer to date 1000 years older in nearly perfect correlation, within measurement and laboratory error, of course. This thread is seeking the creationist explanation for this and other correlations. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024