Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Your error has already been pointed out. But, while somewhat OT, you obviously don't realize that radioactive decay is an "umbrella term" for three very different mechanism, mediated by the most fundamental properties of the Universe, and the many sub-types of the three types. Blithe invocation of changes in decay rates must be accompanied by a proposed mechanism for all these many different types changing in concert so as to maintain the consilience between different dating methods (got a little on-topic there!) and not leaving any of the expected evidence that changes to such fundamental aspects of the Universe would leave.A few quick examples: if radioactive decay were accelerated enough to be consistent with a 6,000-ish year old Earth, among the subtle signs that would be left would be a molten Earth, all life killed twice over by heat and radiation, and even if Noah built a solid lead Ark he'd be killed from the radiation of the potassium-40 in his body. (The RATE group was forced to acknowledge these obvious facts while trying to minimize them: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.)Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.So, please, no more claims about inconstant decay rates until you've done the math and provided a formal explanation for all the relevant observations.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And provides references to those analyses. Have you read those references? Yes to all. Show us the math. What are the exact failures you found in his refernces?

The simple explanation is that none of the methods mentioned in the emails he posted are dating methods. They are paleoclimatology methods. E.g. 18O is not radioactive, 18O/16O ratios are "used as a measure of the temperature of precipitation, as a measure of groundwater/mineral interactions, as an indicator of processes that show isotopic fractionation, like methanogenesis. In paleosciences, 18O:16O data from corals, foraminifera and ice cores are used as a proxy for temperature." (from Wikipedia).This is the wrong thread. All his references are irrelevant here.

OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue.

Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology.

[qs]I've already demonstrated that he's not a reliable source on this subject; he thinks that measuring decay of 18O (a stable isotope) is a dating method, and a few other show-stopper errors that slip my mind at the moment.If he shows some interest in learning, I'll be glad to explain in more detail.

And if the creationist actually specifies the assumptions, it's always the same three, two of which are not assumptions involved in most geological radiometric dating and one which is a conclusion based on mountains of data.

• Assumed initial daughter product
• Assumed closed system
• Assumed constant decay rate

The challenge is not to make stuff up. The challenge is to explain how the many dating methods (carbon, varve, U-Th,... ) are in accord Varves are not formed by diatom shells, nor are they formed in tidal water. They are formed in still fresh water lakes by continuous deposition of white stuff and spring deposition of black stuff (or maybe the other way arround, I can't be bothered to look it up).Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubtEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yup. And those varves are formed in still freshwater lakes that are not tidal, so your claim about them being formed by tides in the ocean is just plain silly. No, it was this particular example which correlated with carbon dating which correlates with U-Th dating and which correlates with lots of other dating methods, listed in RAZD's thread. All of those many independent dating methods must be wrong by the same amount to produce the results we see and for the Earth to be young.There's a whole web of many different methods which correlate, and obviously you know nothing about any of them.

Not quite, it's a confused version of a common creationist "theory". The general idea (there are many variants) is that there was little to no 14C in the atmosphere before the fludde; it was all locked in the vast amount of vegetation necessary to explain the amount of coal and whatnot we see today. After the fludde the 14C was released into the atmosphere and is slowly building towards equilibrium, which it will reach about 30,000 years from now.So the decreased amount of 14C we see in samples is not solely due to the decay of 14C, it's partially due to that and partially due to there being little 14C in the atmosphere when the sample lived.Of course, there are many many things obviously wrong with this "theory". My favorite is that it predicts the grain that was used to make bread in Pompeii must have been grown many many years after Vesuvius covered Pompeii.The major proponent of this idiocy is R. H. Brown: THE INTERPRETATION OF C-14 DATES. A good discussion of his ideas is at Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians

Preparing to run from the facts, I see. True now. Wasn't when the varves were deposited. Scientists can tell.

As to the connections between lakes, Wikipedia appears to be a little wrong. Mikata-goko lakes]:

quote:

---

These lakes are near Wakasa Bay, and all lakes are connected with a narrow channel or a canal.
The lakes are the followings.
Lake Mikata : (Width) 3.56 sq km, (Depth) 5.8 m,
Fresh water
Lake Suigetsu : (W) 4.16 sq km, (D) 34.0 m,
Brackish water
Lake Suga : (W) 0.91 sq km, (D) 13.0 m,
Brackish water
Lake Kugushi : (W) 1.40 sq km, (D) 2.5 m,
Brackish water
Lake Hiruga : (W) 0.92 sq km, (D) 38.5 m,
Ocean water

​

Lake Kugushi and Lake Hiruga are connected with Wakasa Bay.
Urami Canal connecting Lake Suigetsu and Lake Kugushi was constructed in 1664 by artificial means.

​

And Lake Suigetsu and Lake Hiruga were connected with an underground waterway constructed in 1934, but it is always closed to avoid the water quality change.

​

All lakes have different concentrations of salt. Of course, the nearer the sea, the higher the concentration.

​

But deep Lake Suigetsu is unique. The layer from the surface to about 6 meters deep has freshwater, but the deeper layer has oxygen-free brackish containing hydrogen sulfide.

---

The varves aren't forming any longer. IIRC since the canal was dug in 1664. But the varves contain many records of volcanic eruptions. Now those are being correlated with nearby volcanoes, and those volcanoes are being dated by Ar-Ar. Toward establishing precise 40Ar/39Ar chronologies for Late Pleistocene palaeoclimate archives: an example from the Lake Suigetsu (Japan) sedimentary record. Yet another consilience for YECs to fail to explain!

And Lake Kugushi. Oh, yes, definitely. But it seems that the canal stopped varve formation and destroyed some of the upper varves. Or the salty water from Lake Kugushi enters a placid lake and settles rather than mixing.

Perhaps too pedantic, but the clock can be re-set to zero by sufficient heating. One of the many nice things about zircons is that they have to be heated pretty seriously to do that, 900-1100 C based on a quick Google. Maybe there's a more widely agreed number but any way you slice it it's hot.

From Geological Time I see:

Parent	Daughter	Half Life (years)	Dating Range (years)	Minerals/materials
Uranium-238	Lead-206	4,500 million	10-4,600 million	Zircon, Uraninite.
Potassium-40	Argon-40	1,300 million	0.05 to 4,600 million	Muscovite, Biotite, volcanic rocks.
Rubidium-87	Strontium-87	47,000 million	10-4,600 million	Muscovite, Biotite, Metamorphic or Igneous rocks.

(actually K40 in the Ar-Ar method has been used to date the eruption of Vesuvius 76 AD, or about 0.002 mya, somewhat of a tour de force). And I'm pretty sure that other isotopes such as Samarium are also comparable. One could also dive into Dalrymple and look at TABLE 4.1 Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton to see how they do overlap and agree. (Note that in each of the two parts of the table the units are listed in stratigraphic order so you can see the close correlation to that).Side note: Wherever you have some U238 you also have some U237 and you measure the Pb206 and Pb208 and get two largely independent dates. If they agree they are "concordant" and pretty solidly established. If they disagree they are "discordant" and a pretty solid age may be establishable. Nobody call this "U238 dating".