|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And another paper speaks of the U Pb method, how it too is very unreliable. You're job is not just to explain possible sources of errors in the dating but to explain the correlations between them: why they produce similar dates with different methods and have similar correlations to climate and other incidents: From Message 9 (the updated version of this thread that has not been promoted yet), note the correlations between the two different radiometric dating methods and the climate data from the ice cores for the same ages derived there by counting layers of ice - to invalidate these dates you need to show how two different radiometric methods are subject to the same age error, how the ice layers result in the same age error and how the 18O data correlates between the two:
quote: I await your information on these correlations. Without explaining these correlations this shows that these dates are indeed valid and the methods for obtaining them resulted in accurate results. Note too that the ice core data correlates between arctic and antarctic cores, so you have four sets of data with the same results. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fixed table 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But one source mentioned that the 'pigs took it all' in that the correlation between radiometric dating didn't matter at that time. I haven't read the paper yet and have no idea what they mean by "'pigs took it all'" but I will make these predictions:
I do this based on my knowledge of science, the ways they do the dating, and the ways that answersingenesis (AiG) misrepresents these kinds of things to fool gullible people -- those that don't check the stories against the facts.
That the correlation was disregarded due to the pigs. So why would it matter here? First, we are talking about a different {level\kind} of correlation. In your article they are (presumably) talking about the agreement between the different dates for the samples involved, and only over a short portion of time (relatively speaking), and not correlations with any other data (such as on climate). In the case I presented we are talking about the year by year, layer by layer correlation between not only dates but climate markers as well: dates from two different radiometric clocks in the core samples with the 18O data; dates from the two different ice cores with the same kind of 18O information from the ice cores. The correlations between the ages and the climate data match year by year and layer by layer for all four different measurement data: two locked in rock together for eons, and two from opposite ends of the earth, as divergent as possible. It's like the difference between a 2D point on a chart and a 3D curve that covers from now to 500,000 years ago. Second, there is always the possibility of contamination and bad samples (not from close enough in time to the fossils in question due to processes that have removed or added material after the fossils were formed, and the like). That there are some bad dates does not mean that all dates are bad. The scientists know this. The people at AiG know this. The scientists tell you that sometimes the dates are bad. The people at AiG tell you that all dates are bad. Who is most likely to be misrepresenting the facts based on just this information? If you trust AiG you better never buy an apple after getting a bad one. The problem for you is that even IF what AiG says is true then the data from Devil's Hole must show at least ONE of these cases:
The data from the core show exactly the distribution in time that is predicted by radiactive decay, an exponential curve that matches the half-life curves for both of the radioactive methods involved. The problem that AiG parades and trumpets for you does not explain the match of physical data to the theoretical data NOR the correlations between the two radiometric ages and the 18O levels for the same age from the ice cores. Without those correlations being explained by SOME mechanism that can produce those numbers, the data from Devil's Hole shows layer by layer, year by year, validated ages that exceed 500,000 years. This level of validated years vastly exceeds (and invalidates) any young earth model. With the YEC model invalidated we can now turn to what is the real age of the earth and leave those that insist on a young earth (AiG) behind as representatives of a falsified belief.
quote: Predictable. A hoary old PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Google it and see. These depths have nothing to do with the annual layers of snow: layers that are not deliniated by thickness but by physical changes in the ice that are due to winter\summer cycles (and not to storms, etc). The location here is also not remotely related to the one where the ice cores are taken. Now we see that ICR (just like AiG) is misrepresenting the truth of the matter to you and expecting you to swallow it without checking the facts. That is how scam artists and cons work eh? The problem for you is that even IF what ICR says is true then the data from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores should show at least ONE of these cases:
The problem for you is that even IF what AiG or ICR says is true about EITHER ONE of these dating mechanisms, that then there should be no correlation between the two entirely different sets of data formed by entirely different physical processes: this is not the case. CONCLUSION: What AiG and ICR (in many cases it is the same people anyway) says about the accuracy of either of these dating methods is invalid.
I used also pointe out a reference that said that evolutionary old age assumptions are used prior to get old dates and agreement between them, this was explained as circular reasoning and why you get corrolation. Of course they tell you this and other misrepresentations. Instead of taking their word for it why don't you find out for yourself? Look it up on Wiens. Check it out and see: is AiG telling you the truth?
So it seems that there are more complicated things to take into account that uniformatarians are not doing. Their assumption that 'the present is the key to the past' is leading them to false answers. Who and what are "uniformatarians" and how do they relate to the way that science does science? You do know what a straw man argument is don't you? Where you make up some shadow opposition and then prove that shadow wrong, when it has nothing to do with the facts, eh? Science makes no assumptions that yesterday was the same as today, in fact by NOT making any assumption of any kind of "uniform" conditions we have a scientific past that includes among other things (1) a meteor that nearly wiped all life from the face of the earth 65 million years ago - detected by the presence of iridium in sedimentary layers that are the same age around the world - and (2) massive climate swings from ice ages to hothouses and back and forth several times in the past. What science assumes is that the natural laws that apply today - to physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. continue to apply because there is no evidence that (1) they have changed in the past or (2) that they can change. Without any record of any such changes in the past it is not logical to consider them: that alone is reason to assume that the natural laws continue to operate in the past the same as they operate in today's world and through all of human history. But without any mechanism that could cause such changes it is unscientific to consider them. Now if you think there is some mechanism that causes natural laws to change then by all means present it and lets see how it tests out. And I don't mean some hypothetical what if certain things changed - I've had enough "what-if" stories - but a specific mechanism that causes natural laws to change, how it causes those changes and specifically what the changes are. What does it predict and how does it explain the correlations in the dates for Devil's Hole and the Ice Cores. Now if you want to pretend that supernatural laws took over at some point in the past then you can do that. That, however, is not science, and it is not logic. It is fantasy, science fiction, mythology, and what is known in logic as special pleading: the proposition that anything you propose be taken as true and not subject to the same degree and kind of testing as your opposition.
You see why I have trouble agreeing with your statements? In my eyes, the interpretations you are bringing forward, are not taking into account Noah's flood, but that is because they do not believe it happened. (you might say for good reasons). Noah's flood does not explain the existence to say nothing of the correlations in the data from all the different methods for finding ages of different parts of the earth: your "good reason" being not just the lack of evidence for a flood, but the evidence that it COULD NOT have occurred in the time scales of Devil's Hole and the Ice Cores (they would not have survived such an occurrence). Heck, the concept that a world wide flood occurred at some time in the last 12,000 years is invalidated by the tree ring data that extends back that far that shows continuous year by year unbroken growth of trees for that depth of the past. This is further extended by other annual systems, but this ALONE shows a YEC model young earth to be invalid and it is not even the tip of the iceberg of data for an old earth. It's not a matter of different interpretations, it is a matter of which interpretation covers all the evidence and which one leaves many cases of contradictory evidence unexplained. Denial of contradictory evidence is NOT a "different" interpretation it is a LACK of interpretation. Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith or interpretation it is:
And the only question is what level of delusion we are talking about: one can remove oneself from a state of being deluded by getting educated on the facts, and by severing oneself from those that are doing the deceiving, after one uncovers their deceits. How do you test your knowledge of reality? By taking someone's word for it or by looking at the evidence yourself? Are you more or less skeptical of someone else's position because it is what you want to believe? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : corrected aig to icr (big difference eh?) Edited by RAZD, : would not have survived 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: So before the KNM ER 1470 fossil was found the KBS tuff was dated and the dating was questioned. What we don't have are the reasons that it was "clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present" -- is this a lie of omission? This would be given in the reference, but this part was not quoted by AiG, so I'll need to access this from the library to find out:
2. F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226. Looking for what I could find on the web I looked at TalkOrigins.org and what they had to say about the KBS tuff" and they had two different articles on it, one on "Creationist Claims" (about the KBS tuff) and one on radiometric dating methods in general: (1) "Creationist Claims"
quote: Color mine for empHASis. Sounds like they nailed the AiG claim eh? And then show that the AiG claim about not being able to find good samples was false even for such a problematic deposition. All the radiometric dates given above (2.61, 1.82, 1.60, 2.44, 1.87, 1.88, 1.89) average out to 2.02 myr ago with a standard deviation of 0.34 myr (17%) -- ie just based on these data alone the age should be between 1.68 myr and 2.35 myr. In the absence of any other data this is still sufficient to show that the earth and the fossils are substantially older than any possible YEC explanation. Also note here that it is not the age of the pigs, but the sedimentary layer that the pigs were found in that was used to show the age: this is old geology that pre-dates radiometric methods, and uses relative ages of sedimentary layers to organize the fossil finds - the pig fossils are dated by the geological layer. (2) "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time ScaleCircular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?" Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale quote: Color mine for empHASis. From this we see that the material in the KBS tuff is a mixture of older rocks with volcanic ash that has then been moved from it's original deposition site to the present location (erosion and deposition): this material is generally older than the deposit at the fossil site, some of it much older. The final radiometric date was found by eliminating these anachronistic elements from the samples used. We also see that the dating was questioned from the start because of the known problems with this material. There is a LOT more under the heading "A good example" that bears reading by anyone questioning radiometric dating. Far from being nearly impossible to find, samples that completely refute the AiG claim that:
quote: Because it shows just such a case where the practical matter of selecting rock samples that can be shown to be pure enough and uncontaminated enough to produce valid dates is possible: that is all that is required, and it is what happens 999 times out of a thousand (compared to examples like the KBS tuff). Another example of such a pure enough and contamination free enough samples is the Devil's Hole deposit, that shows a continuous record for over 500,000 years with two independent radiometic dating systems. That second TalkOrigins article also addresses the common creatortionista claim of circular reasoning:
quote: I suggest anyone interested in the validity of the AiG claim of circular reasoning read the whole section. The original KBS Tuff dates (212 million to 230 million years of age) did not match the known stratigraphic age of the area. The dates in contention -- from 1.6 to 2.6 million years -- show that the dates are problematic in some cases. This does NOT mean that the dates are problematic in ALL cases, NOR does it mean that the methods are invalid, because it does not demonstrate that these conditions apply to all samples. In all cases the dates derived are still consistently older than any YEC model: even the worst date examples from radiometric methods show that the earth is older than a YEC model can explain. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added last p to last quote 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Jon.
Can you look up F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226. And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I'll see what I can find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? When the anomalies are explained by science based on observation, theory, prediction, test and validation. And by independent verification by replication of the results. That is how science works.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. Not the samples per se, the history of the area and the sediments the samples came from: if there are reasons to think the dates are suspect due to those factors then you TEST that concept by looking for variations in the dates for different parts and see if you can reproduce such errors. They did that. Then you look for ways to eliminate the conflicts that cause the erroneous dates. They did that. Then you see if what you get is consistent between different samples tested in different ways with those conflicts eliminated. They did that. Then you look at the results. They did that: the dates agreed between the different methods once the causes of errors had been removed. Do you really think the dates can be fudged to come out with whatever results one wants? If you do, then how do you explain all the dates that "just happen" to come out right the first time? Even on blind sample testing?
The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Nope. Else they would have stayed with Leakey's 2.6 million years eh?
Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Well ... as soon as there is a testable theory for how this could actually work ... and how it would explain all the evidence from all the different sources for the age of the earth ... then all this amounts to is mere handwaving in desperation while denying that the evidence shows consistent dates for an old earth. Don't hold your breath however. Let me reiterate -- the age of the earth by various non-radiometric methods, methods based on a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand -- give these results:
These systems do not rely on radiometric dating methods, but on annual layers. Each one invalidates the YEC concept. Each one correlates with the others. You need to address ALL the information, not just isolated dating anomalies that even if they are correct STILL show that the earth is old. Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. Gottum. Doesn't look like any great surprises so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web. Or something they have been told by some creatortionista culling the gullibles. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Elhardt,
Being extremely liberal and taking the maximum possible depth of ice at 2 miles thick and your first number, you end up with 40 years of annual ice per foot, or one year adding only about 0.3 inches. If it's 900,000 years as the post above states, it gets worse. You're now at about 0.15 inches added per year. The problem is that appears orders of magnitude too small and contradicts other things I've seen. There are a couple of errors here, first is that the layers are not the same thickness now as when they were laid down. If you read the references you would see that the layers are compressed by the ice and snow over them, with the deeper layers being more compressed than the upper layers. Second, the thickness of the layers has nothing to do with their annual character - again the references give information on the differences between summer and winter ice that is irrespective of thickness.
For example, on one documentary I was watching, some scientists dug down about 6 feet into the ice, and they were pointing out that you could see the yearly layers as the sun shined through the ice, and it was about 9 inches per year. They also said the ice at that place was about 4000 feet deep. A simple calculation gives you an age of about 5333 years. So a problem may appear on your end, not on the YEC's end. Again, a there are several errors here. First, you are still assuming constant layer thickness as noted above, and second the same references that tell you about the compression of the ice layers also talk about where the ice is so compressed that the annual layers can no longer be distinguished by eye, and have to be measured by other means (based on the characteristics of winter ice versus summer ice). Third, you are assuming that "a simple calculation" has some real relationship to reality when you have not established a basis for making such a claim: to do so honestly you would need to show first that the layers do not change in time. The scientists counting the layers are making no such assumptions -- they are content to count the layers.
Also take those P-38 aircraft that landed on the ice in Greenland in 1942. When some veterans went back to recover one, none of them could be found. They were under 268 feet of ice in just 50 years. Too often is seems things move a lot faster than scientists tell us. As noted by kongstad ice build up is different in different places. This P-38 story is an old creationist PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) for several reasons. The most basic is that the depth of ice is not the same as annual layers of ice. By knowing the differences between winter and summer ice even the ice over the P-38 (and other craft) can still be separated into annual layers. Amazingly when this is done and the layers counted, they match the age of the aircraft.
Who says one band in an ice core equals one year anyway? Isn't it possible to have multiple falls of snow and melting and freezing in one year? And I am not aware that anybody has ever taken a two mile long or deep ice core either. So who knows what the yearly layers look like. The fact that you have not read the references provided, nor studied the issue by researching the articles in the science journals is evident, so what you are aware of or not aware of seems to hold very little value. As noted above the references do not assume that "one band in an ice core equals one year" -- they test the ice to see that the bands are annual layers.
As you can see, in this annual ice layer case there are nothing but contradictions. We see nothing of the kind, rather what we see is a rather ignorant (having skipped the references that give the information) review by an amateur who is unfamiliar with the behavior of ice. For instance:
First we need to solve contradictions like 9 inches per year vs 0.15 inches per year or we're going to get nowhere. There is no contradiction, as this is actually discussed in the references, where they explain about the compaction of the ice and the relative thickness of the layers as they change with depth. You also fail to show that the 9" layers are from the same place as the ice cores.
And the snow on the antarctic is supposed to be slowly moving outward like a glacier and dropping into the ocean such that there shouldn't be any ice still existing from 400,000+ years ago. When you compress any material vertically it tends to spread horizontally. The degree of spread depends on the compressibility of the material and whether there is anything to restrain the horizontal spread. Spreading horizontally does not make the material in the center disappear.
And there is evidence that rivers were depositing sediments into the ocean 6-7000 years ago there meaning it was partly free from ice. Or that the rivers were running under the ice, as they do in many many many places covered by glaciers.
The whole picture gets very confused. It looks to me like you need to do some real research into the subject, not read creationist "papoganda" and educate yourself about what the facts are about the ice layers. The information is available. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just a quick question for now (I'll get into your posts more tonight):
What does this have to do with the correlations of ages between the different systems? It is one thing to say:
Message 216 Either the C-14 dating is bogus and the siberian peat not young or the Greenland ice varve dating is bogus and Greenland's young and not old. And it is another to explain how the ages then are correlated by those different systems. To say nothing of the fact there are other alternatives ... Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Siberia is one of the coldest areas in the northern hemisphere but it has evidence in its permafrost called peat. Yet the area you are talking about is a coastal environment near sea level at 66.5°N to 70°N (and 67°E to 72°E), while the Greenland GISP2 core was taken from 72.6°N, 38.5°W, 3200 meters (~10,500 feet, nearly 2 miles) above sea level: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html
quote: In addition the climate NOW at your Siberia sites (taking the northermost one for example):
quote: Is significantly different from the climate NOW at the GISP2 core site:
quote: No permafrost there, to say nothing about forests at any time while the rock is covered by ice.
Siberia is located in the upper hemisphere like Iceland and Greenland but because of the prevailing winds does not get excessive moisture as does Greenland or Iceland. Deserts don't get much precipitation either, but that doesn't mean that the environment is the same, a position that is demonstrably false by comparing their environments and ecosystems today.
Yet massive amounts of Peat in Siberia all needing thousands of years to form in a temperate climate are all dating only thousands of years old. So? Your article talks about periods that had faster peat growth, but that still is not related to the Greenland ice core area or the change in climate there.
Given the evidence is that Siberia had a Logically false. The climate in Siberia back in the Holocene Optimum is only ~2.5°C warmer, estimated from the effect of global warming in your article:
quote: {abe}Note +13.8°C = 57°F{/abe} And applying twice this difference to Greenland at the site of the cores still means an mean annual air temperature at Summit ~-26°C -- STILL significantly different from your sites in Siberia. Thus it would take an order of magnitude more warming to turn the Greenland GISP2 site into Siberia.
Borisov argued that this idea is not all that far-fetched. He notes that measurements carried out on Greenland’s northeastern glaciers as far back as the early 1950’s showed that they were loosing ice far faster than it was being formed. 8 The northeastern glaciers were in fact in “ablation” as a result of just a 1C rise in average global temperature. What would be expected from another 2C rise? - over the course of several thousand years? In other words, global warming is not new, and you are talking about the coastal ice fields and not the glacier where the ice cores were taken.
Message 220 Given the Yamal Peninsula was not frozen over with trees known to be growing that far north for thousands of years. Meaning a climate far different may have existed where the summer and winter climatic models that have been assumed are being re-evaluated. Or one just enough different that the trees growing in the river valleys would survive on the hillsides. A change far less extreme than the difference between the climate in Siberia and the one at the GISP2 ice core location.
With only a 1 degree rise in global temperature today you need a paddle boat near the north pole. Imagine what a 2 degree rise in global temperature would do in respect to opening up the Artic Ocean to the ocean tidal currents. In the summer of 2006. Previous explorers have encountered open water at the pole before this, and this still is not the GISP2 site climate\environment.
Its highly possible that the Artic Ocean was open 5,500 years ago and that these indicator fossils ... What "indicator fossils"? Which paper? Please try to be a little more coherant?
... are only 5,500-9,500 years old. So?
In the same part of the link as the Berezovka Mammoth it talks of temperate plants and warm weather animals all jumbled together within the Artic Circle along the same latitude as Greenland all around the globe. No real evidence the ice varves in Greenland could of existed with all these warm blooded creatures and temperate plant thriving for thousands of years 5,500 years ago. There are many warm-blooded creatures living within the Arctic Circle today, dogs for instance, so this means little. From your sited "Ancient Ice" article:
quote: Reference 39 is an AnswersInGenesis article by Michael J. Oard:
quote: A weatherman? Writing (supposedly) about paleontology? I also see no relevance of this information to either the environment of the Yamal Penninsula OR the GISP2 site in Greenland -- those fossils could be from anywhere, given the detail of data in the articles, nor do we have information on the age of each fossil. It looks to me like a typical creationist article that tries to provide massive misinformation in a pseudo-scientific manner while providing no real information and no way to validate the information. Given that AiG publishes documented falsehoods on a regular basis it is not a reliable site for anything, and thus neither is any article that uses it for a reference. Relying on them puts you in a position of passing on falsehoods through ignorance of the facts. For instance:
Message 216 The Greenland Ice varves are melting today and the average global temperature its been said to have "only" raisen 1 degree celcius over the last 100 years. Compare that statement to this picture (with strangely no discussion) from the "Ancient Ice" article:
quote: Doing a little research I found the reference: Maximum Melt Extent on Greenland Ice Sheet, 2005
quote: In other words, the area that is white did not have 1 day of melt in all of 2002, 2005 or the last 26 years in the record, and that is also where GISP2 is located. (See http://www.lib.utexas.edu/...ands_oceans_poles/greenland.jpg about where the vertical longitude crosses the solid latitude line ... you want 72.6°N, 38.5°W). Melting in Greenland does not mean melting of the ice layers at the GISP2 location. Summary The environment at GISP2 is significantly different from the Siberian Yamal Penninsula and there is no real basis for saying that evidence from the Holocene Optimum at one site compares to conditions at the other. The further spread (dilution?) of information to vague and general conditions anywhere within the Arctic Circle (starting at ~66.5°N) and jumbling in fossils from any number of sites does not increase the evidence that things were significantly different enough at GISP2 to turn it into an environment anything like the Yamal Penninsula. This is much more like misdirection than evidence -- the kind of misdirection used by magicians during staged tricks. There has not been significant melt recorded at the GISP2 site, nor has there been any other evidence presented that suggests that the layers of ice at GISP2 are not annual layers that add up to an age of 110,000 years for the ice, and at least that time for the existence of the earth. There is not one (1) thing in any post of yours so far that addresses the issue of correlations between dating methods. Without addressing those correlations all your innuendos are just pie in the sky concepts, typical of creationists. Thus your posts have not been relevant to the actual conditions at GISP2, whether now or in the past, nor to the issue of correlations between dating methods, the actual topic of this thread. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't see how Ice Varves could of existed however will let you get back to your topic. I've got things happening just trying to raise within your mind a question of doubt about the truthfullness of ice varves even existing 5,500 years ago. First off the world of reality is not affected by what you see and understand. The fact remains that you do not provide any explanation for the correlations once you throw out the concept of the ice layers being only 5,500 years: your explanation of the facts is incomplete at best, fallacious at worst. Science on the other hand explains both the age they get and the correlations.
It does not sound like the land itself is 2 miles above sea level just the ice. Do you have any evidence the lands elevation is any different than the Yamal Peninsula. Well you could take the difference between the elevation and the core length, the data is there. Of course you would want to compare the difference in elevation at the time of the Yamal Penninsula thaw during the Holocene Optimum -- say 9,000 years ago, which is pretty near the top of the column of ice. Otherwise you are comparing one place at one time and another at another time.
These organisms are indicator fossils ... You still have not explained what "indicator fossils" you are talking about: to be scientific about this you need to list the species identifications with locations and climate where they were found ... "somewhere" in the Arctic Circle is rather inadequate at best, and an outright falsehood at worst in terms of talking about conditions either at the Yamal Penninsula or at the GISP2 site in Greenland (where no fossils have been found).
Purdue University talking about tropical organism's thriving at around 73 degrees Fahrenheit basically beneath the north pole. I thought the North Pole was over water (and thus necessarily at sea level). And this too is irrelevant when talking about the climate at GISP2. Just as irrelevant as the climate at Yamal Penninsula, because it is significantly different today.
If the earth was old the Russians study should of had tree's/Peat dating 50,000+ years. They didn't their evidence does not support an old earth. False, totally false. Not just because the logic is false, but because there can be any number of reasons for no peat before 9,000 BP -- one of which is that the area was covered by ice.
The problem with evolutionists they always basing the past by the present. This too is a falsehood. Science is based on the assumption that the evidence is true, that the evidence tells you what happened. What we see by applying this is that at several times in the past that climate and conditions were different than they are at the present -- note how thoroughly this falsifies your claim.
P.S. In an artic tropical like climate would think rainfall would be the result not snow much like we see in Seattle Washington. First, temperatures up to 73°F is not tropical, and second, once again, what you think is irrelevant to what the evidence shows. Third, right there in Seattle you can look out and see mountains covered in snow and ice year round, mountains with heights similar to the GISP2 site. Note you have not refuted a single point I have made regarding the difference in climate at GISP2 down to and including the lack of evidence of melting at the site. The reality is that you have no argument. You can't (or won't attempt to) explain the correlation in dating methods, and you can't refute existing methods with irrelevant information. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : corrected subtitle Edited by RAZD, : grammar 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, and welcome to the fray, SophistiCat.
I don't have the time or energy to debate on other forums. A better thread to put this information is Radioactive carbon dating. The rest of my response is there at Message 151, with one point I'd like to repeat here:
quote: The correlations still demonstrate that a YEC world is not possible. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The greater age with increasing depth is explained by the C14 diffusing upward by CO2 & Methane anaerobic gasing. This has already been covered on Carbon 14 Dating and the possible effect of "leaching", conclusion: no apparent leaching of C14 compared to C12 has occurred in Lake Suigetsu. This still does not explain the correlation between C14 ages, the varve layers and the climate patterns in ice caps and Lake Suigetsu, nor the matching data in the overlap period with the tree rings. Until you can explain the correlations between dating methods, speculation about possible theoretical problems with one dating method does not amount to a hill of beans -- the possible theoretical part is invalidated by the correlations. Got that yet? {abe}
... C14 can and does migrate due to anaerobic digestion and humic acids ... And the leaf samples would not exist if there had been digestion of any kind. Humic substance - Wikipedia
quote: Again, this would mean that there would be no leaf sample left.
No need to rediscuss this for it was discussed to death on ... Several threads and in no case did reversespin\charley\golfer\whatever make a point that was valid. ========================================================
14C is present in gaseous form (CO2) and gradually diffuses in the earth system.(from Razd own study they acknowledge C02 diffuses and 14C is present in gaseous form (C02)). http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm That link no longer works, but this still doesn't explain how C14 gets from your gas -- IF it exists -- into the organic samples and replaces the carbon in the molecules. Without a mechanism to exchange the carbon this is again just your wishful thinking and not a real explanation. This has been pointed out before so repeating it is just evidence that reversespin\charley\golfer\whatever is ignoring evidence that contradicts him.
Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Which does not apply to sediment already at the bottom of a lake.
Doesn't mention carbon-14 anywhere nor discuss preferential leaching of isotope specific carbon.
When microorganisms die in ponds of water or in the ocean, they slowly sink to the bottom, forming a thick black sludge. Over time, this sludge becomes buried and compacted by more organisms and layers of mud. If oxygen is left out of the mixture, the organic matter can’t decay and it eventually fossilizes into the material called kerogen. This doesn't apply to the leaf samples buried in the Lake Suigetsu varves, and this Kerogen is absent from the Lake Suigetsu varves, more evidence that this doesn't apply here. As is typical of reversespin\charley\golfer\whatever, this is a lot of irrelevant information that does not apply to the situation, and doesn't affect the carbon content or ratio in the samples of organic matter from Lake Suigetsu. Lack of understanding, of the articles and of the data from the Lake, contributes to this false perception (or is it intentional misrepresentation?) by reversespin\charley\golfer\whatever. This has happened before. Frequently. But don't take my word for it -- read the thread he listed: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads -->http://EvC Forum: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads -->EvC Forum: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads< !--UE--> Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : tangents Edited by RAZD, : added last link 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is a direct quote from the suigetsu Lake study on one of your links. Provide the source so we can see how your have misrepresented it (note prediction). You are remembering one of your irrelevant links, I'll bet.
Anyone familar with biological science knows the absense of oxygen causes anaerobic digestion ... Only IF there are anaerobic bacteria present where the object is. In the absence of anaerobic bacteria nothing happens. Now we look at the evidence -- do we see leaves digested in unidentifiable mulch (humus) or do we see identifiable leaves thousands of years old? Conclusion: no anaerobic bacteria are present around the leaf. See how simple that is? See how it uses evidence from the Lake? Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024