|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
If you continue to avoid discussing the details of your own references and the topic of this thread you will have to take a break from posting at all.
This is your first warning -- it may be your last.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Charley,
I'm going to guess that you're completely in the dark as to why you've drawn an administrative warning. Here's the situation as it looks to me. It seems to me that you're not responding to what people are saying. For example, in Message 114 Ringo pointed out that your source is describing a time before 55 million years ago, not 10 or 20 thousand years ago. You replied, "I agree they indirectly dated the time from the sediments in the arctic..." The problem with your reply is that it completely ignores what Ringo pointed out, that your own source is talking about a time more than 55 million years ago, and dates that old can only come from radiometric dating, so they were not "indirectly dated from the sediments". In other words, your posts are like you're having a conversation with yourself. It doesn't matter what anyone says, your posts always say the same thing. This thread is about correlations between the dating methods. Unless you can begin to focus on the topic and respond to what people actually say then you'll likely continue to have trouble with board administration. It has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, only whether you're following the Forum Guidelines. These are the rules I think you're not following:
Just trying to help. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why pray tell if the earth is billions of years ago does tree rings only correlate back 10,000 years(in agreement with a young earth). It's 10,000 years for the pine and 11,000 years for the "post" oak -- of continuous record. There are a number of other records that are floating and that are older - once you accept the reality of an old earth. These floating records do NOT match the continuous records so they represent years of age at least additional to the others without any measurement of time lapsed between them.
The frozen peat too correlates that vegetation dating approximately 12,000 years with scientist that have no evidence any exists in the northern latitudes older than 16,500 years. You've been told the answer to this two or three times. Denial of that evidence does not invalidate it.
No actually its the paleontologists in the universities that are trapped if they speak out they risk losing tenure. Its sad you can not see this simple truth. However (the love of money is a root of evil). This blatant falshood and insult is a result of your failure to understand the reality, the result of paranoid delsusion and not reality. The easiest way to make money in the US in my opinion is to lie to people about science and cater to the fundamentalist gullibles. You don't even have to do any real work, you can make stuff up. You can't be prosecuted for scamming people because it is "religion" -- easy street eh?
Because the truth has been stretched time after time after time so the stretching fits system after system. That doesn't explain why it fits when you find a new instance. Every instance fits. You have not explained a mechanism for how the tree ring data can be "stretched" to count more years than they show. You have not explained a mechanism for how the lake varve data can be "stretched" to count more years than they show. You have not explained a mechanism for how the ice layer data can be "stretched" to count more years than they show. And why they all end up with the same time for significant events in history that we know about, and with other events that we previously had rough ideas of age, but now show up in two different systems with the SAME age. In fact, you have not explained anything, but just made another unsubstantiated assertion.
I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) Yes, it is interesting what the data shows. That is what happens when you look at real data: you are often surprised. That is where the fun of doing real science comes in. This temperature fluctuation, however, has nothing to do with the validity of the annual layers and the way they are measured and the ages they measure. This is known as a red herring logical fallacy: introducing something not related to the argument instead of answering it. Summary: the earth is older than any YEC model based on the known annual layer counting systems so far discussed, not ONE of these systems has been invalidated on their own, there are correlations between each system (marker events occur at the same age), and there has been absolutely no explanation for any mechanism to produce a false signal for a marker event in any one of the annual counting systems so far discussed, and we have yet to get to the next one on the list: devil's hole -- another totally different independent system that also {GASP!} correlates with the same marker events at the same age. Your posts amount to "shuck and jive" rather than an honest evalutation of the data and a discussion of how it can cause the correlations. Please answer these questions yes or no: (1) Do you agree that the tree ring data actually measure time back to 10,000 years (using both of the tree ring data set to the extent of their overlap)? (2) Do you agree that the 14C data correlates with the tree ring data for the same 10,000 years of age? This will establish whether we have a base from which to move further into the available data 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The problem with your reply is that it completely ignores what Ringo pointed out, that your own source is talking about a time more than 55 million years ago, and dates that old can only come from radiometric dating, so they were not "indirectly dated from the sediments". This thread is about correlations between the dating methods. Unless you can begin to focus on the topic and respond to what people actually say then you'll likely continue to have trouble with board administration NO this is not true unless you can prove that the sediments were dated by radiometric dating. Sediments are at times indirectly dated by the critters that are found within the sediments. Paleontologist could then justify saying the age of the sediments is 55 million years ago without any direct dating of the sediments. Your the only person that questioned indirect dating and what if anything it has to do with the topic about the correlations of the dating methods. But just to clarify I wasn't taking Ringo's post lightly but exposing how at times dates are based not on radiometric dating or direct dating but indirect dating. I've got things happening so taking a break, got a tournament, projects etc... to finish before the snow falls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
When you come back Charley, any posts here will be on the topic of correlations or you will take another immediate break.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Charley,
Jar just reminded me of something important that I had forgotten: you're actually Whatever. There's no way of knowing for certain why you participate in the way you do, but since I'm only a participant in this thread I'll leave Forum Guidelines issues up to moderator team.
NO this is not true unless you can prove that the sediments were dated by radiometric dating. Sediments are at times indirectly dated by the critters that are found within the sediments. You are correct, but I was responding to what you said, which mentioned "sediments" not indicator fossils. The point you're missing is that the lake varves we're talking about in this thread are from the last 10 to 20 thousand years. The sediments mentioned in your link (Page not found - Green Diary - A comprehensive guide to sustainable hacks, green tips, and eco suggestions) are from around 55 million years ago and were not dated by counting layers. That article has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is about how the various independent dating methods all agree with each other, and how creationists explain this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The point you're missing is that the lake varves we're talking about in this thread are from the last 10 to 20 thousand years. The lake varves are "floating" because the sample system destroys the first layers as far as I can tell (other sources, some more recent studies, etc) The varves continue for something over 100,000 layers -- only the ones less than 50,000 are used to calibrate 14C. Of this calibration, there is only one core that goes to those full depths. I have been in contact with Dr. Takeshi Nakagawa, and he has given me some more recent information as well. One of them is:
Nakagawa, T., Kitagawa, H., Yasuda, Y., Tarasov, P.E., Gotanda, K., Sawai, Y. Pollen/event stratigraphy of the varved sediment of Lake Suigetsu, central Japan from 15,701 to 10,217 SG vyr BP (Suigetsu varve years before present): Description, interpretation, and correlation with other regions. Quaternary Science Reviews 2005, 24, 1691-1701. Which interests me as another source of correlations with climate. He also gave me a PDF with more recent data from Kitigawa and van Plicht that I need to read, comparing their data to INTCAL98:
Kitagawa & Plicht, ATMOSPHERIC RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION BEYOND 11,900 CAL BP FROM LAKE SUIGETSU LAMINATED SEDIMENTS, RADIOCARBON, Vol 42, Nr 3, 2000, p 369-380 I am also looking for a copy of (if anyone wants to email me):
Beck, J.W., et al. Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period, Science 292(5526):2453-2458, 29 June 2001; see Fig. 3, p. 2455. As this may have information that conficts with some of the deeper (single core) data (where the uncertainty is greatest). I would not be surprised to see a revision to this section of the correlations -- not because of charley\whatever and any other creationists propoganda, but because new information requires it. Note from the original Kitigawa paper (1998):
quote: This always struck me as a little strange, as if the lake was ice-bound year-round during the last Glacial Maximum there would be no diatom layers and a false young age would result. And this age is about where the other new data kicks in from other sources. It could be that the original assumptions there were not correct, thus limiting the valid data to 37,930 yBP -- still well beyond any YEC model ... or any vision of charley\whatever for diffusion problems. Unfortunately my time is short and the holiday are upon us so I cannot say when I will finish with this material and be able to update everyone. I'll keep everyone posted as I go. Edited by RAZD, : dbcode 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Beck, J.W., et al. Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period, Science 292(5526):2453-2458, 29 June 2001; see Fig. 3, p. 2455. That's free online if you register at Science | AAAS - or I'll email you the pdf if you can't get to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
could you email it? I've lost my password to science and don't want\need another with all the notifications etc (one of these days I'll fix?)
you have mail Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Done!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Printed and reading. Thanks. I think I'll be reading through the new year on all this info.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
The photographs here show sedimentary rock that has been eroded by wind to produce Yardangs. “Yardangs form as the result of preferential erosion of surrounding media. In desert environments, mildly cemented "cores" of sediment form the basis for the structure. Loose sediment surrounding the cemented section erodes faster, leaving the core behind. Yardangs are elongate, with their long axis parallel to the prevailing wind direction.”(Wikipedia) In the first photograph there is an impact crater that was buried and then later exposed by erosion. One can see in the larger image that this crater is casting a shadow, which means the rock inside the crater rises above the area which is only possible if it has been filled in and the material turned to stone. This means the crater struck before majority of the sediments where deposited. The impact crater could not have happened after the erosion as it would then be a depression; and therefore not cast a shadow. Though this is not a direct correlation to the various dates presented so far in this thread; it does show that there is a correlation to the various geologic processes seen on Earth with other planets. Though many creationists claim the processes we see on Earth are simply the result of a global flood this same process cannot be applied to what we see on other planets (or various satellites). The images show deposits in layers and the results of erosion. The image from the Gobi desert could be argued as being the results of a global flood, but the same processes seen on Mars are obviously not the result of the same event. Rapid deposition, solidification, and erosion in a {month/week} event 6000 years ago did not create the features seen on the Martian landscape. If Noah's flood did not create the sedimentary rock or the Yardangs found on Mars, then perhaps geologists really are on to something with "Old Earth" ideas? I cannot see how these formations could be created in a short period of time. **More information on the satellite image can be found Here, the second image is from National Geographic (Jan, 2002, p. 72,73)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
We have salt in the seas, the Earth's magnetic field, Comets, and Aging the Solar System, the Kuiper Belt, the Oort comet cloud problems for Evolutionists, Saturns Rings, Mercury (the tiny planet that causes big problems for Emo Evos), The speedy star changes, exploding stars, extrasolar planets, venus, Helium, a steady sun, solar neutrinos, Dendrochronological failures, eroding ages, plutons and their rapid cooling, microscopic diamonds, rapid granite formation, rapid rocks, sandy stripes, instant petrified wood, rapid petrification of wood, limestone caves, stalactite rapidity, Forests growing on water, rapid ice building, etc.!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
The problem is not the dating methods, known as Radiometric dating and Polonium Argon dating. They do have some great benefits, but trying to date aging rocks and the like is problematic, and simply impossible. That would be the problem for Evolutionists. Radiometric dating procedures are impossible to determine an old Earth, since rocks can not be accurately dated! The measurements are based on presuppositional ideas that the Earth has to be such and such an age, and if it goes beyond their range for how old the Earth is, they try to force the age of the rock to be what they want it to be, no matter whether they date it to be 3 million + or - the amount of years from the range of the data gathered. As such, its completely unreliable to trust a Geologist who adheres to radiometric dating procedures to attempt to prove the age of a rock being such and such an age, since the methods do not provide that such a benefit to the Geologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Actually, none of that is true. Radiometric dating is highly reliable, and has been confirmed by a number of seperate methods.
Much like a pan balance corrobrating a kitchen scale, the methods corroborate each other because, due to their different mechanisms, it's impossible for a given circumstance to affect them in the same way. You're completely misinformed about radiometric dating, JF. I suggest you ask some questions and learn from the real geologists who post here. I know I've learned a lot from them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024