|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Taq,
This can't be stressed enough. The results from Lake Suigetsu correlate with results from a lake in Poland. So we have two lakes on opposite sides of the world that have the same sorting of organic debris by 14C concentrations. Even within the same method there is considerable correlation. The correlations become even more impressive when you compare different methods. The two sets of lake varve data also agree with tree dendrochronology from both Europe and North America, coral dating by annual growth patterns, and carbon dioxide captured in annual ice layers in both Greenland and Antarctica. I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating. Creationists need to explain how all of these quite different methods all agree with one another. Not one creationist has been able to do this so far, and it is even worse for them when you note that these continuous records are not interrupted by any purported flood:
quote: And another 5 years have passed, making it 10,439 years of continuous data uninterrupted by a purported flood. And
quote: And we also know that a purported flood did not occur in this area during that time span, as the sediment layers would show debris and sediment from the flood waters. And this does not even begin to address the massive evidence for the age of the earth and the lack of a world wide flood event. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
And biblical scholars have reached a general agreement of about 4,350 years ago for the global flood, with fewer and fewer estimates older than about 5,000 years ago. And while they're at it, they should explain why there is an absence of evidence for a global flood at the agreed-upon date in their back yards and everywhere else. And they need to keep in the time-frame as defined in the documented correlations of age already provide unless they can explain all the correlations. These age correlations show that a global flood could not have occurred in over hundreds of thousands of years by several different methods. Kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Taq
... I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating. See Message 9 quote: Two different curves need to be explained by any creationist who want to challenge these methods: how did just the right amounts of each element get deposited if this is not a record of annual deposition over hundreds of thousands of years? How did just the right amounts of dissolved oxygen isotopes get deposited to match the annual layers for the antarctic ice cores for age and climate? oh, and a flood in this area would have destroyed the stalactite ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : table spacingby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pollux, welcome to the fray,
Further support for C14 dating is shown by varves in the Cariaco basin with winter-spring plankton growth and summer-fall increase in terrigenous grains. Starting at 12,000 BP the varve count ... So this is a floating chronology, similar to Lake Suigetsu. How is it anchored?
Interestingly, there is a rise in C14 age from 34,000 to 41,000 in just 2000 varve counts. This seems also to be shown in Lake Suigetsu and is attributed to variation in the solar wind. This sharp rise and the reported plateaus in the C14 curve at 750- 450 BC and at 11,000 to 10,000 BP help to show that real results are being reported, and not just "correct" ones as some YEC might claim. It would be nice to see some links and graphs. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Pollux
The Cariaco report is at Not Found and includes graphs. It seems to be anchored by C14 dating and ice-core comparison. The Wiki article on Carbon Dating mentions the plateau at 10,000 -11,000years. I did not record where I saw the referral to the 750-450 BC plateau, but it seems to show on your dendrochronology graph. The Cariaco article also mentions other plateaus in the record. Thanks, I'll read through that this weekend and see what I can extract to add to the thread.
I have been looking at the reports of ice and deep-sea cores. There is an immense amount of information in them which would be very difficult to squeeze in to a YEC paradigm, including many more correlations. The correlations with climate change are of interest to me for several reasons, one of which is the persistent YEC claim that climate could\would be different before the flood, so being able to show long term climate trends without extreme alterations would be evidence against this argument. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pollux and NoNukes,
I have seen a range of YECs. Some would have trouble understanding the science. Some like some medicos I know are perfectly able to understand but reject and/or ignore it. Some know the science but their faith trumps it. This would make a great topic for a new thread. I would start with a discussion of Cognitive Dissonance
This is a powerful psychological block to accepting any information that contradicts firmly held beliefs. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pollux
You may be interested in a report of a sea-core off Portugal which compares pollen records from varying advance and retreat of forests etc with temperature signals and comparison with ice-cores 185,000 to 345,000 years ago. It is at School of Geography: 404 I'll look into that tomorrow (my study day this week) as well as your other reference. One thing I will be looking for is a good start to the core and well defined annual layers. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pollux,
I am only a beginner in this but what I have seen so far is annual layers can be counted in ice cores for a few tens of thousands of years, confirmed by C14 and other markers such as O18. In deeper layers O18 and Be10 changes can be seen in Milankovitch cycles and allow estimation of greater ages. The ice cores can be compared with similar O18 changes in sea-cores and speleothems which can yield higher RM dates. Amounts of CO2 included in the ice cores also varies with other temperature markers. I read that the Vostok core was dated by 5 different methods with agreement within a few thousand years, but the methods were not detailed. If someone else can give more details that would be good. I'll have to go back and recheck the ice core information, thanks. A similar problem occurs with the Lake Suigetsu layers, and that is why I cut off the annual layers where I do, even though the core data extends much further. One thing we can say about those extended cores is that they do not show a discontinuity in that data, a disruption of the process of layer formation, the introduction of completely foreign objects into the layer process (such as piles of dinosaur fossils). Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
I've been waiting for some breakthroughs in this field. Current AMS dates are $595 at Beta Analytic. If we could get some significant cost drop we could do a lot more samples. Additional accuracy would be a nice side benefit as well. Indeed, think what doing more samples on the tree rings and other samples from annual varves etc would do for the calibration curves as well.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Pollux,
I've read through the Hughen et al paper on the Cariaco Basin varves, and it looks like it helps confirm the other data as suggested. I do still need to check with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core data to see how it is anchored and correlated. I would like to use this as another example with the other annual systems if I can, but if not then it certainly serves as a further correlation that needs to be explained -- ie how come does this set of data only match the other curves if the dates are correct, and why does it match the other data so completely if the dates are not correct. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
From foreveryoung in Message 25 on the Whether to leave this forum or not thread:
I don't deny any facts that i am sure are facts. You have to convince me they are facts before I will believe them. You say the age of the earth is a fact. I read a bit of your age correlations paper. I am not convinced about the climate correlations in regards to the devils hole in nevada where there is a stalagtite being investigated. I am not convince oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I feel they are rough estimates at best. What exactly do you call a good correlation? But, lets say you are correct and they all correlate well. If all radiometric decay was greater in the past and every isotope has had its decay rate drop off at exactly the same rate as each other, then something that happened 570,000 radiometric years ago could have happened 25,000 years ago in reality, and it would still show the same correlations. First off, I recognize that it is difficult to accept concepts that run counter to what you have been taught, this is called cognitive dissonance in psychology, and we are all susceptible to it, no matter your education or experience or opinions. What is important is to keep an open, if skeptical, mind, and not react to reject new information.
You say the age of the earth is a fact. I read a bit of your age correlations paper. That is what the evidence shows. We either accept that the objective evidence represents reality or that reality is an illusion. It is a fact that the correlations between different age measuring systems result in virtually identical results, not just for age but for climate and other aspects within the evidence.
If all radiometric decay was greater in the past and every isotope has had its decay rate drop off at exactly the same rate as each other, then something that happened 570,000 radiometric years ago could have happened 25,000 years ago in reality, and it would still show the same correlations. It is a fact that the levels of 14C measured in the tree rings and the Lake Suigetsu varves are the same levels for the same ages in 4 different sets of data measured by annual counted layers, and that these precisely measured levels correlate with the decay curve for 14C, thus showing that such radiometric hanky panky did not occur within the last 35,000 years, minimum.
I am not convinced about the climate correlations in regards to the devils hole in nevada where there is a stalagtite being investigated. I am not convince oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I feel they are rough estimates at best. What exactly do you call a good correlation? They don't need to be accurate proxies of the actual climate in the past, what is important is that the same proxies are measured in the arctic and antarctic ice cores, which are correlated with annual counted layers. As with 14C evidence used, the oxygen and carbon isotope ratios originated in the earths atmosphere at the time that they were trapped, and as the earths atmosphere is well mixed there cannot be major differences in concentrations for different parts of the globe: the level of 14C in one area will be very close to the level of 14C in an area on the other side of the earth, and the same applies to the oxygen and carbon isotope ratios measured. The objective measured evidence is the isotope quantities and their ratios, and these are facts. The changes in their levels from year to year are explained by climate changes, in the same way we see this change today, but climate per se is not the evidence. There is additional evidence of climate changes in pollen counts and types that also correlate, and these give us a better idea of what those paleoclimates were like. I can provide you with the link to the tables of data that show the correlations between the ice cores and the stalactite if you want to look at the actual numbers. Your problem is not to provide an alternate explanation for each system of age measurement by any single hypothetical system (such as your comment on radiometric dating), but to explain why they correlate with the annual counting systems and with the other measurements. Why do I get the same age from 14C as I do from tree rings? An open skeptical mind says yes, it is possible that the earth is young, but then how do I explain all these correlations. An open skeptical mind says yes, it is possible that all this evidence is correct, and the earth is very old, but how do I know that there isn't something that causes all these systems to be wrong in the same places and in the same ways. Science is about explaining the evidence, and it assumes that the evidence represents reality. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : rby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pollux
The Scripps Institute has a discussion of the Milankovich cycles used in dating ice and sea cores ... Milutin Milankovi - Wikipedia Leaving out the cause and effect issues of the cyclic patterns originally discussed by Milankovich in 1912 and formalized in 1920, we can certainly see markers of these cycles in each of the dating systems where we have indications of paleoclimates and their correlations with the dates in each of these systems. We can add correlations with these cycles to the long list of additional correlations between data from various different areas of science, and ask the question why a cyclic pattern would exist if the ages are all wrong. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dwise1,
I don't know whether this had been covered yet, especially since this is a second version of the topic, but do the readers know the significance of correlations? Actually this is version 2.1, with previous versions 1.1 (297 posts), 1.2 (306 posts), and 1.3 (357 posts) reaching a total of 960 posts without a single correlation being explained by a single creationist. Notably, it seems, creationists avoid this thread (the information is too dangerous?) or they just don't have a clue (information, education, etc) how to respond.
So out of pure chance, what is the probability that several sets of independent data should agree with each other? An increasingly small probability. But what do we observe instead? All these different independent sets of data agree with each other. What are the odds of that? That is why correlations are so important. There is a possibility that they could all just by chance agree with each other, but we are able to calculate the probability of that happening. And we can clearly see that that probability becomes vanishingly small. And yet despite those odds all those correlations come up with the same answer. Which lends strength to their all pointing to the same truth. And because there is a wide variety of systems, that each would need a different kind of tweaking to squeeze in a young earth concept, the likelihood of a single process explaining all the data shrinks down to one: they correlate because they represent the actual age of the earth. Or god-did-it-all and all the evidence is illusion. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 1:
quote: Either explain the correlations or accept that the evidence shows the earth is old. Enjoy.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) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ScottyDouglas d
Start with Message 1 and Message 2: Bristlecone Pines:
quote: Then consider Message 3: European Oaks:
quote: Most people consider accuracy within 0.5% to be highly accurate. Remember that correlations are the key here. This means that you need to explain how these dates could be wrong and yet still produce the correlations listed. Or you should accept that these dates are an accurate of age. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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) |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024