Age Correlations and an Old Earth

No, they are not on topic because (1) there is nothing you have posted that then explains why the mechanism you give for creating the data from the ice has exactly the same pattern for age as the mechanism you give for creating the data from the lake varves and (2) using data from lake varves that are known to be multiple layers per year systems does not show that the Lake Suigitsu varves are not annual events because they are different mechanisms causing the varves. It is like saying that an apple is not a fruit because a tomato is not a fruit and we all know they are both big round red juicy things to eat, so apples must be vegetables that grow on a vine. Perhaps you begin to see what you are up against, and realize that you don't have anything to show for the correlations. Understandable.And for your info -- there are tree rings older than 10,000 years, they just don't have one set that is continuous beyond that time ... yet. The older tree rings are dated with multiple dating methods to confirm dates. The 10,000-year limit here is just the number of continuous years that can be counted.This message has been edited by RAZD, 07-08-2004 10:06 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And since the topic of this thread is the correlations you will not post here again. You only have priviledges here if you stay strickly on topic. and, as has been noted, you have NOT answered the issue of correlations of methods AT ALL. Any answer must explain the correlations.I did ask you to explain what that meant. You didn't. It becomes more likly that you don't even know what it means. Do not post here again unless you are prepared to both explain, in your own words, what the issue is and stick strickly to it.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-08-2004 10:21 AM

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

whatever has been chided for getting off topic on this thread for not dealing with the problem of correlations of all the age dating methods.while this information is good refutation of his post, it does not contribute to that matter of correlations, and continued discussion of it should be on a new topic (the validity of C14 dating?) if there isn't already an old one on it ... like:http://EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years -->EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years
http://EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation -->EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation
http://EvC Forum: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method? -->EvC Forum: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?thanks

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

pssssssst! Tomatos are fruits.
dastardly of me.
your friend
George

so are a lot of things that are commonly regarded as vegetables
Tomato. Fruits Vegetables. Health, Diet Information.it's a member of the poisonous nightshade family too.
Nightshade Family Food Avoidance - Why it is Recommendedand it is the main ingredient in that famous school vegetableketchupstill doesn't change the argument, may even enhance it ... vine ripened lake varves anyone?

nothing. Enhancements can certainly alter the shape of things. I had a memorable encounter with that school vegetable. Before you shake the bottle, make sure the cap is on tight, or you'll look like you were in a hatchet fight and everyone had a hatchet 'cept you.
potatos come to mind, in honor of someone.....potatoes.

a literal view of the Biblical accounts of Genesis are not fully exploited. of what bible? the king james? in english? the bible wasn't written in english, you know. translation is not perfect. different languages bring about a different understanding of things.but then i'm a philosopher and a wannabe linguist.

This is another measure of the constancy of radio decay. The various different methods of measuring both radiometric and just plain counting agree with all of the others.It is the correlations that the YEC'ers have never come close to answering. If you review this thread you will see that they don't seem to ever get to understanding what the heck the word is.

Thanks for the bump, but I'm getting very weary of debating all of this. I know most creos don't ever get a grasp on what their debating. I read through some of this article and I read through some other creo and evo articles on the net and find all kinds contradictory stuff. Like the 100 year old lava flow on Hawaii that dated as old as 2.9 billion years and an average of 1.4 bill by several different methods... I'm sure there's an evo explanation for it, and I'm sure there are creo explanations for it. And then another evo site showing high correlations, and then another creo pointing out flaws and assumptions...Again, the best creo site I've seen so far written by someone who has been familiar with the debate and who does not swallow everything other creo writers tell him without checking it out is: The Radiometric Dating Game
He has been in contact with people at Talkorigins and seems to know where the TRUE arguments lie, but I'm sure there's probably an evo explanation cooked up for almost every point he raises too.So anyways, I'm going to sit here in neutral and wait for inspiration.

did not notice any field work. Your god looks a lot like your dad

One of the things that happens in lava flows is that lumps of old rock get caught up in the flow and carried along. Someone looking to make a statement that dating does not work can look for these inclusions, take samples from them and have them dated by reputable labs, and voila: evidence of error!This is a creatortionista trick that has been used several times (flow into grand canyon is another one), and Plaisted is no more creditable than others, as his degree is computer science, not geology (the site is inside his personal user space on the UNC computer system and does not represent the views of the university - that they allow such to be posted is to their open minded credit).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Thanks for the bump, but I'm getting very weary of debating all of this. I know most creos don't ever get a grasp on what their debating. I read through some of this article and I read through some other creo and evo articles on the net and find all kinds contradictory stuff. Like the 100 year old lava flow on Hawaii that dated as old as 2.9 billion years and an average of 1.4 bill by several different methods... I'm sure there's an evo explanation for it, and I'm sure there are creo explanations for it. And then another evo site showing high correlations, and then another creo pointing out flaws and assumptions...

---

This is a misquote, and a deliberate one at that (at least by the originator).Note the title of the paper in which the data appears:

quote:

---

Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)

---

My emphasis. The thrust of the research was on inclusions: non-melted rocks included in a magma reservoir and carried along with a lava flow. The base lava was radio-dated and duly returned a date of 0 (100 years is too small to show up), as was clearly stated in the study.However, when the inclusions were dated, they threw up dates all over the place. This was what was expected: the heat had driven out some of the relevant isotopes.That was why the study was done: to show that radio-dating of lava inclusions was not possible, and disproving the (minority) view that this would enable the base lava to be dated.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

Again, the best creo site I've seen so far written by someone who has been familiar with the debate and who does not swallow everything other creo writers tell him without checking it out is: The Radiometric Dating Game
He has been in contact with people at Talkorigins and seems to know where the TRUE arguments lie, but I'm sure there's probably an evo explanation cooked up for almost every point he raises too.

---

Ah, yes, David Plaisted. A computer engineer. A very good source for geochronological information.I debated him once. He didn't last very long.I will say that David is sincere and really wants to believe that radiometric dating is seriously flawed. Because of the religious conotations, however, he cannot deal with a lot of the facts and simply ignores them.