Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Charley, whatever you say about Humphries and his fakery, the helium bit is already refuted.Radiometric Dating

quote:

---

15. Low abundances of helium in zircon grains show that these minerals are much younger than radiometric dating suggests.

​

Zircon grains are important for uranium-thorium-lead dating because they contain abundant uranium and thorium parent isotopes. Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium. However, as a gas of very small atomic size, helium tends to escape rather easily. Researchers have studied the rates of diffusion of helium from zircons, with the prediction from one study by a young-Earth creationist suggesting that it should be quantitatively retained despite its atomic size. The assumptions of the temperature conditions of the rock over time are most likely unrealistic in this case.

​

16. The fact that radiogenic helium and argon are still degassing from the Earth's interior prove that the Earth must be young.

​

The radioactive parent isotopes, uranium and potassium, have very long half-lives, as shown in Table 1. These parents still exist in abundance in the Earth's interior, and are still producing helium and argon. There is also a time lag between the production of the daughter products and their degassing. If the Earth were geologically very young, very little helium and argon would have been produced. One can compare the amount of argon in the atmosphere to what would be expected from decay of potassium over 4.6 billion years, and in fact it is consistent.

---

Quartz is commom with uranium. Denial of the evidence won't make it go away Charley, whatever you think. inh(ysa)o, what you are laboring under is not difficulty in understanding the words, but in reconciling them with your beliefs that are at odds with the evidence.Your belief system will cause you to reject statements shortly after they are read as being untrue, and with that going on you cannot form coherant thoughts that involve that evidence.This is where delusions about a young earth are evil.It is not inflamatory, it is truth.You can count tree rings older than most YEC models (6,000 years), and it is NOT rocket science.You can count lake varves older than ALL YEC models (12,000? years), and it is not rocket science.You can count ice layers way older that all YEC models and it is not rocket science.Bedded in each counting system are markers for past events or climates that show up in the other systems at the same level for counting rings, varves and ice layers. This is evidence that each one has the time the same for that event or climate - in spite of the evidence being a totally different system.That is the correlations between the systems, and it is not rocket science.Sorry it is hard on you, but that's reality.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

From Wiens: "Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium."So we have a new source of Helium atoms AND a general diffusion of Helium through a rock that normally contains a lot of radioactive material. And Wiens addresses this not uncommon feature:

quote:

---

13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.

​

This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

​

At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.

---

Yellow for emPHAsis: evidence of an OLD earth.You've had your fun with this little diversion (your normal tactic)And Humphries is once more exposed as a quack, a hack, a dillusionist of the gullibles, a snake oil salesman.Remember this the next time you feel compelled to cite Humphries for anything.Now can we get back to the topic of CORRELATIONS?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Pretty neat picture.You can certainly see some discontinuities in these layers and places where it looks like the previous layers were eroded before subsequent deposition.Possible marine life interaction?This is also similar to the layers of the foraminifera found in marine sediments (similar sized amoeboid protists that also leave a shell)Wonder if Palmer and Arnold can use their equipment on these diatoma as well, and generate another picture of evolution over long periods of time.Not sure how this fits correlations though. Thoughts?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Of course.Because if they didn't conclude that they (1) would be out of a job, and (2) couldn't make a living off gullible people that don't care about reality if someone pretends to be an authority and feeds them the pap they want to suck down. You realize that Weins refuted this position don't you? Completely. Both polonium and uranium have abundant sources.Numbers 1. through 20. are from the section at the end called:
APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating MethodsRadiation haloes is #13 on the hit parade and previous references to 15 an 16 are also on the list.These are PRATTS. They are also creationist lies, intended to delude the gullible. The perps are frauds.Quoting the refuted "Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" as part of my post is also dishonest, and a gross misrepresentation of what I did post.Now,Can we get back to correlations?Why do we get the same dates for climate and marker events from different dating mechanism? Some with annual layers and some without, based on on the science of radiology?Why do we get the correlations? Time after time after time after time? In system after system after system after system?One answer is because those dates are correct and the earth is old.The only other answer I've seen so far is composed of denial of the evidence, attempts to change the subject, and dancing around the issue without addressing it -- but it's not an explanation of the evidence, just of the total inability of anyone wanting to believe in a YEC to put together a coherant answer.Denial of evidence is NOT faith, it is delusion.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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. You've been told the answer to this two or three times. Denial of that evidence does not invalidate it. 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? 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. 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.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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: 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: I am also looking for a copy of (if anyone wants to email me): 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:

---

The floating varve chronology was connected to the old part of the absolute treering chronology (2, 15) by 14C wiggle matching (16), resulting in an absolute calendar age covering the time span from 8830 to 37,930 cal yr B.P. (17). The age beyond 37,930 cal yr B.P. is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial.

---

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

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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 mailEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Printed and reading. Thanks. I think I'll be reading through the new year on all this info.

Welcome to the fray JesusFighter.One of the things we like to do on this forum is stick to the topic laid out in the original post -- in this case the correlations between various dating methods, including radiometric and actual counting of actual annual layers. Correlations that match not just for dates, but for historic occurrances and climate, things that could not be explained by random error in every method.Your post does not address this issue. If you do want to address this issue you can start with an explanation for the correlations between the first two dendrochronologies, that match for age, climate and marker events like the little ice age. IF you can develop a thesis that shows "Dendrochronological failures" for these two systems from opposite sides of the earth then you can move on to explain why we see the SAME correlations in diatom\clay varves at the bottom of a lake in Japan. There are other threads where you can discuss these issue more freely. This is not part of the correlation issue involved in this thread -- it involves mostly annual dating methods and only mentions radiometric ones (Carbon-14, Thorium-230 and Protactinium-231) to show that they too arrive at the same dates as the annual systems.I suggest Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages as a starting point, as it deals mostly with radiometric dating.As a side note, all threads are cut off at about 300 posts (why this one is on Part III - the other two were maxed out before any creationist posed a single plausible correlation that showed how every system could simultaneously be in significant error but have the same climate and other correlations at the same times), and thus the emphasis on staying on topic rather than wasting posts on off-topic (even if related) posts.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Instead of coming in like gang-busters full of sound and fury signifying nothing, try reading the OP. Message 1Your failure to read the examples already provided is not my fault.Try to actually deal with them step by step. So far all you have provided is braggado and arrogance without a single iota of evidence or intellectually valid information to contradict a single dating method.This is a science thread, and that means you need to substantiate your position with evidence. Real evidence.You can't just say dendrochonology is full of errors you need to demonstrate it, document it, show how it {could\would\should} be corrected to match your ignorant belief of a young earth in spite of the evidence that shows absolutely no difference in the kinds of rings involved and in spite of the fact that the european oak rings have been independently validated by other evidence back to ~3000 BC (~5,000 years ago) and the ones older than that look no different than those first 5,000 years worth.You also need to address the topic of the correlations or you are not dealing with the issue of this topic but your own private fantasy about dating methods.So far, all you have done on this thread (and others) is waste band-width. A lot of band-width. I fully expect you to waste another 50 or 60 posts AT LEAST on this topic with more band-width wasting irrelevant and inconsequential self-indulgent and ignorant blather, because so far you haven't displayed the ability to add 2 plus 2 and come up with anything greater than 2.Ignorance combined with pride are like that. It also, fortunately, has absolutely no effect on reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : poyt

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

No, you have a bunch of evidence that is consistent with a young earth but it proves nothing.It is easy to find evidence FOR young PORTIONS of the earth on a much older earth, due to the nature of tectonics and the geology of the earth, so this proves nothing but a willingness to be ignorant about, and denial of, evidence for an older earth.Evidence FOR a concept is not enough to validate it, as you also have to deal with evidence that REFUTES the concept.Example 1: there is evidence that supports a flat earth. The earth is not flat as there is abundant and conclusive evidence that shows it is an oblate spheroid.Example 2: there is evidence that the sun orbits the earth and the earth is the center of the universe. The earth is not the center of the universe or even the solar system and there is abundant and conclusive evidence that shows it orbits the sun as the third rock in the solar system.Both these concepts are invalidated by contradicting evidence that refutes and disproves the concepts. The concepts cannot be true and have this contradictory evidence be true as well. Is another argument from authority, a logical fallacy common to creationists brought up on the grand-daddy of all arguments from authority. WHO says something is totally irrelevant (hence your whole rant on Blythe is totally irrelevant as it does not deal with WHAT evolution is about).Saying that he "refutes the chrondite meteorite 'dating game'" is not evidence, but unsubstantiated assertion - another creationist favorite, apparently because they seem totally unfamiliar with the concept of substantiating evidence actually being used to support an argument.Tree rings alone refute and invalidate the young earth concept. Deal with it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

People who want to comment or make suggestions for the version 2 I am building at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 can do so here.Thanks iceage.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

fyihttp://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v95/i1/p92_1

quote:

---

Thermal Neutron Capture Cross Section of Carbon-13

​

G. R. Hennig
Chemistry Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois

​

Received 22 March 1954

​

The thermal neutron capture cross section of C13 has been determined from the amount of C14 formed in pile-irradiated samples of graphite, barium carbonate, and carbon dioxide. Because of the impurity reaction, N14(n, p)C14, of comparatively high cross section, the results were consistent only when samples were used which were enriched in C13.

​

The average isotopic cross section determined for the enriched samples was 1.40.2 millibarns. The final value of the cross section in these samples corrected for the estimated residual nitrogen impurity is 0.90.2 millibarn.

​

©1954 The American Physical Society

​

URL:http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v95/p92
DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.95.92

---

The way I read this is that the measure of neutron capture by carbon-13 was hampered by the simultaneous production of carbon-14 from nitrogen-14 similar to the atmospheric production.ie - both systems are operating in the presence of radioactivity.or am I missing something?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Understood, thanks.They are also talking about fairly high quantities compared to the levels in normal organic objects and especially compared to old oil, coal, diamond samples, yes?C14 - 0.000 000 000 10% atmospheric carbon+0.50% of the modern atmospheric is only 0.000 000 000 0005% of the total carbonAND there is no threshold of radiation level below which this would not occur, the amount of radiation in the surrounding environment wouold only affect the rate of conversionsthanksEdited by RAZD, : added last p

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Thanks for replying Reserve. In other words you conveniently ignore the earlier dates that build to those older dates and show the correlations that need to be answered first.This means you either:(1) accept the ages provided by them in their entirety (740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core) OR(2) you have no way to refute these agesEither way this means the earth is minimum 740,000 years old and radiometric dating to those ages is valid. False. In many cases now the effort at finding fossils is focused on specific ages of rocks and sediments. Tiktaalik is a case in point: they dated the rocks first, found the fossils second. Most Hominid fossils as well.This reasoning also falls completely flat and shows that they are wrong when you look at these cases where the rocks were dated first and fossils found afterwards, and that they end up with valid results in these cases.How do you explain that?I'll read the rest of your article later.Now you need to go back and deal with the first parts and the correlations or accept that the age of the earth is at least 740,000 years old.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added links.