Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Whatever,I see you are going back to your mish mash of pseudoscience. Please explain how dual porosity affects tree rings? These tree rings are not set up across soil layers, but are side by side in the same fossil. They show the same correlation with carbon isotope levels as is seen in the lake varves.Dual porosity doesn't explain the different ice layers, which are solid ice and not affected by soluble carbon. Dual porosity also doesn't explain why ash from Mt. Vesuvius is found at the right depth in the ice cores and at the right age as measured by isotopes in the ice layers.I guess the question is, why is it that whenever the radiometric dating systems are applied to a new set of data independent of isotope concentration (eg annual layers), the dating methodologies always agree with previous data. We will never be able to directly observe if varves were an annual event even 300 years ago, but the evidence is there. So far, you have shown no evidence that varves were NOT laid down annually. You must show us evidence, not Walt Brown's day dreams, that varves, tree rings, cave deposits, and ice layers are all wrong to the same degree. You would have to figure out how ash from Mt. Vesuvius bored its way through the ice until it arrived at the correct level in the ice layers. You would have to figure out how whole forests added 2 rings instead of 1. All of them, not just a few. You must also figure out how varves in the past laid down layers, not by lensing, but by the ratio of 14C within the organic matter. You must show us how several different isotopes all migrated through solid matter in order to give us data that is wrong, but correlates world wide with numerous sites, numerous studies, and numerous measurements. All you have given us is untested ad hoc hypotheses. I want a graph, a study, actual measurements, or something that has at least been scientifically tested instead of these dreams about lensing and dual porosity. Until you do so, you will be kind of a laughing stock. You will be like the town drunk who proclaims the sky is falling every time it gets dark outside, who proclaims that he can build an airplane that will reach the moon, or that stars are just large diamonds in the sky.

quote:

---

I kinda hear you though on dual porosity, though its really quite scientific, capillary waters, solutes seeking to equalize to lesser concentrations, through in the weak electric current of the earth, when you add large amounts of time like the 4,350 years since the biblical world flood, a whole lot of transmovements of ionic solvents, that could affect the dating methods proportionally, where they appears to agree one to the other, though don't believe you can date a rock that buried fossils to be the same age as the fossil (that takes a leap of faith), Rather than argue all this again, think I'm just going to agree to disagree, and take a break, etc...

---

Could you please give us the study that shows elements moving within strata. I want methodologies and graphs showing the data. If no such study has been done, how do you know it happens?

quote:

---

However if C-14 is soluable, then the capillary solutes would diffuse it out of your varves,

---

If ¹⁴C is soluble then so is ¹²C. It is not the raw amount of ¹⁴C that is measured, but the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C. You must show how one isotope of carbon, with the same solubility properties as the other isotope of carbon, is preferrentially solubilized in aquatic environments. This is the only way that I see, without in situ conversion of nitrogen to ¹⁴C by exogenous radioactive decay. By the way, you might want to check out how small amounts of ¹⁴C can be caused by radiation in nearby rocks, this may explain a lot.

quote:

---

Now I'm not a scientists but Walt Brown said lower varves C-14 drops too quickly to be a proportional to your curves, supporting the biblical deluge.

---

We have all seen the data. There is no such drop-off for 40,000 years. If you think it exists, please show us the graph. Also, maybe you could tell us why U/Th dates agree with the carbon ratios. In fact, please tell us why every other nuclide series used for dating agrees with carbon dating.All you have given us is ad hoc hypotheses (again). You must back up your assertions with data, not by repeating the same misused jargon over and over. Hey, just for starters explain how ¹⁴C but not ¹²C is leeched out as an explanation for why carbon dating is so far off.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-23-2004]

quote:

---

Why not, (just need a little cold weather), if there are rocks in the soil, the frost will press them upward.

---

Need I note that the temperature in Panama never gets below freezing, at least in the lower elevations?

quote:

---

because of the principles of solutes seeking to equalize, because C14 is soluable, would not the organics be slowly over time be releasing into the solute concentrations, because of capillary pressures, additional C-14 into the water solutes that your testing for in the organics (unless of course they are testing the water in the cores too), etc...

---

C12 and C14 have the same solubility, so the ratio of C12/C14 would stay the same. Therefore, half of the carbon within an organic sample could dissolve and yet still show the same age because the ratio of C12/C14 has not changed.

quote:

---

I kind of hear you, proportionally though wouldn't the solutes over time via the capillary pressures move solute concentrations upward because the water solutes in the above varves would have less concentrations because less would of been dissolved from the organics,

---

Firstly, organic molecules that make up fossils are pretty insoluble. For instance, cellulose is insoluble in water so the process of dissolving the carbon that is part of cellulose is impossible. Only perminerilazation, which is a covalent reaction that replaces carbon with other minerals such as silica, is able to remove the carbon. Secondly, if these varves were created at the same time then the carbon leaching then the samples on the bottom most layers would have similar C12/C14 ratios, hence any amount of carbon that leeches out will be equal with the organic fossils throughout each varve layer. If the varves were laid down as mainstream science accepts them, then the higher C12/C14 ratio of the water moving up towards the top layers would make the top samples date older than what they actually are. However, the very top layers (from 150 years ago) show C12/C14 ratios that are close to normal equilibrium with the atmosphere. I'll have to read earlier posts, but I think that there are measurements of the C12/C14 ratios of trapped C02 within the ice layers as well. If organic fossils within varves are contaminated from leeching and capillary actions then the varve data should not match up with a static ice-layering system. I would bet the bottom dollar that they would match up.

quote:

---

If you don't feel leeching affects the accuracy of the C-14 dating methods because of proportional leaching then that makes Snellings Mineralized Wood fossil younger than the basalt that entombed the petrified wood fossil, bringing into question the accuracy of the other dating methodologies, etc...

---

The question is Snellings honesty. Firstly, the wood sample dated to 50,000 years old, which is at the very end of the accuracy scale for C14 dating. Secondly, small amounts of radiation from surrounding rock can create very small amounts of C14 within organic fossils. Thirdly, background radiation within the measuring equipment itself can give erroneous dates within the 60,000-40,000 measured age range. Fourthly, Snelling never even showed that it was wood. In other words, another creationist misusing dating techniques to fool the uneducated.PS: Sorry whatever, I didn't see AdminNosy's thread right above mine. Perhaps you can meld the varve data and leeching into more static systems such as ice layering. It would seem that if leeching were a problem then it wouldn't match up with systems that aren't susceptible to liquid water such as the ice-layers.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-08-2004 11:12 AM

RAZD,I concur, sorry for getting things off topic.

Willow,What assays or procedures should we use to calculate the age of fossils and geologic layers?

Do you also agree that it is an intellectually dishonest defense?

WJ in message 247: Although I wouldn't have worded it this strongly, I do agree that you take this position at times. That is, even if the evidence is objectively testable and supports a certain scientific theory (and I stress scientific) you are able to claim it isn't true because of the theological basis of your argument. Your argument is that the Bible is true and anything that opposes your interpretation of the Bible has to be false. The inability for other people not to understand the "truth" you see is because they do not believe. From my observations, your worldview clouds everything that you put forth to the point of rejecting objective data because it does not agree with your subjective worldview. You seem to claim is that scientific truth is theistic, and scientific evidence must first pass a theistic test before it is accepted. If it doesn't meet the conclusions of your worldview then it is rejected.Perhaps it is the pot calling the kettle black, but I hardly see how agreement of age between dating methodologies can objectively be shown to be wrong. These types of correlations were predicted and are expected if dating methodologies are accurate. However, I don't see how this has any bearing on the truthfulness of Genesis. It only has bearing on the literalness of Genesis and it's effectiveness as a book of science.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-11-2004 03:03 PM

quote:

---

My argument is how does the alleged scientific evidence disprove the Bible ?

​

Your argument, derived from the blue box, is that the scientific methodologies is the only way and best way to determine truth.

---

I think that scientific methodology is the best way to determine the truth as it applies to physical reality. I leave the greater Truth of a possible supernatural realms to the religious and philosophical. I think we have common ground in this regard.

quote:

---

Why don't we have the debate that was discussed in our emails ?

​

Just create the topic and lets go at it. Radz is eager to participate too.

---

An open debate perhaps? Would the topic be "God Sense" and how it affects scientific investigation?

quote:

---

You cannot eviscerate the meaning of Genesis by employing the emotive term of "literalness". Genesis is not a science book/source of error - it is the eternal word of God - massive difference.

---

Agreed. I would never suggest that science falsifies the theological truth of the Bible.