Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Edited by RAZD, : post addedEdited by RAZD, : referencesEdited by RAZD, : deletedEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : deleted

Edited by RAZD, : deleted

This is from a creationist source: Biblical Chronologist.org article: "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?"

quote:

---

An Independent Check

​

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

​

...

​

European Tree-ring Chronology

​

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. ... The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

​

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.

​

...

​

Multiple Rings Per Year?

​

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

​

...

​

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

​

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

​

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

​

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.

---

It comes back to the internal correlations between the data contained within the tree rings.Thus we see that the methodology used by dendrochronologists is validated by the independent data from other dendrochronologies (consistent) and from 14C/12C content within the rings.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?" abstract from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the ¹⁴C ages with the actual depth in the sediment. A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

quote:

---

RESULTS

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and ¹⁴C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The ¹⁴C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

---

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:

​

Graph of actual ¹⁴C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"There is no rational reason for the ¹⁴C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age.This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age.And from another source:http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

quote:

---

Estimation of the eruption ages of five tephra layers at Ohnuma Moor based on AMS-¹⁴C dates

​

As the results of tephra correlation in the present paper and Katoh et al. (2006), six tephra layers included in the finer sediments about 17-m thick at the Ohnuma Moor were correlated with K-Ah, SUk, MsP, Sh, AT, and Nh in descending stratigraphic order. There was no age estimation of the tephra layers except for K-Ah and AT based on the precise AMS-¹⁴C dating. We also obtained stratigraphically concordant AMS-¹⁴C ages from the same sediments (Table 2 and Fig. 2) that permit the estimation of eruption ages of SUk, MsP, Sh, and Nh. In addition to these tephra layers, we determine the eruption age of AT and compare it wisuth the previous precise age estimation (Matsumoto et al., 1987; Murayama et al., 1993; Miyairi et al., 2004) to asses our results.

---

This independent study uses ¹⁴C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the ¹⁴C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a ¹⁴C age of ~16,500 BP.Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and ¹⁴C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu gives me a ¹⁴C age of ~16,500 BP. The same ¹⁴C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments.Another consistent correlation with age as measured by the Lake Suigetsu varves.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Kitagawa, Hiroyuki; van, der Plicht Johannes, "A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE" from Radiocarbon Volume 40 Number 1 p. 505-515. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from https://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=
   http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.arizona.edu%2FVolume40%2F
   Number1%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v40_n1_505_515_v.pdf
   
2. Shigehiro KATOH, Kumiko HANDA, Masayuki HYODO, Hiroshi SATO, Toshio NAKAMURA, Tohru YAMASHITA and Tohru DANHARA, "Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS -14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan" Nature and Human Activities, 11, 29-50, 2007. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from
   http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

Edited by RAZD, : refs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

The last two posts have shown that there are internal correlations between three sets of data for tree rings and for the Lake Suigetsu varves, and now we look at information that demonstrates an internal correlation for radioactive decay and age:Uranium Halos - evidence of an old earthRadiometric Dating (8)

quote:

---

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.

---

This is part of his response to the question of Polonium halos. NOTE: this is not a discussion about the validity of Polonium halos - anyone wanting to discuss those can go to polonium halos or to discuss how Uranium halos are formed - anyone wanting to discuss that can go to Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?. This is about the correlation between alpha energy, the radiohalo diamter and the decay rate of different isotopes.The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref): Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle.This unique energy then determines how far (on average) an alpha particle will travel before it gets stopped and absorbed into the surrounding material (and causes the ring pattern to be visible) and the result is a halo or a number of halos around decaying inclusions that look like rings, but are actually spherical, and something like this: The halos require more than one particle to form as each one only makes a point on the ring. Thus uranium, with it's long half-life, takes "several hundred million years to form."Now the fun part: this is based on our knowledge of physics and the physical constants that tell us how things behave in the universe, so what happens if you have fast decay instead of old time? The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission (2)

quote:

---

Unlike the electric forces, whose strengths are given by the simple Coulomb force law, there is no simple formula for how the strong nuclear force depends on distance. Roughly speaking, it is effective over ranges of ~1 fm, but falls off extremely quickly at larger distances (much faster than 1/r2). Since the radius of a neutron or proton is about 1 fm, that means that when a bunch of neutrons and protons are packed together to form a nucleus, the strong nuclear force is effective only between neighbors.

​

In a very heavy nucleus, (c), a proton that finds itself near the edge has only a few neighbors close enough to attract it significantly via the strong nuclear force, but every other proton in the nucleus exerts a repulsive electrical force on it. If the nucleus is large enough, the total electrical repulsion may be sufficient to overcome the attraction of the strong force, and the nucleus may spit out a proton. Proton emission is fairly rare, however; a more common type of radioactive decay in heavy nuclei is alpha decay, shown in (d). The imbalance of the forces is similar, but the chunk that is ejected is an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons) rather than a single proton.

​

It is also possible for the nucleus to split into two pieces of roughly equal size, (e), a process known as fission.

---

This is why we have alpha particles instead of free protons being ejected. If you change the forces involved then you change this balance, changing the radiation effect. Alpha Binding Energy (3)

quote:

---

The nuclear binding energy of the alpha particle is extremely high, 28.3 MeV. It is an exceptionally stable collection of nucleons, and those heavier nuclei which can be viewed as collections of alpha particles (carbon-12, oxygen-16, etc.) are also exceptionally stable. This contrasts with a binding energy of only 8 MeV for helium-3, which forms an intermediate step in the proton-proton fusion cycle.

---

I envisage it as a pyramid with each particle in contact with the other, and therefore bound by the strong force. Again, decrease the forces to cause faster decay and you break down the alpha particle.From Alpha Barrier Penetration (4)

quote:

---

The energy of emitted alpha particles was a mystery to early investigators because it was evident that they did not have enough energy, according to classical physics, to escape the nucleus. Once an approximate size of the nucleus was obtained by Rutherford scattering, one could calculate the height of the Coulomb barrier at the radius of the nucleus. It was evident that this energy was several times higher than the observed alpha particle energies. There was also an incredible range of half lives for the alpha particle which could not be explained by anything in classical physics.

The resolution of this dilemma came with the realization that there was a finite probability that the alpha particle could penetrate the wall by quantum mechanical tunneling. Using tunneling, Gamow was able to calculate a dependence for the half-life as a function of alpha particle energy which was in agreement with experimental observations.

---

Alpha Tunneling Model (5)

quote:

---

​

The illustration represents an attempt to model the alpha decay characteristics of polonium-212, which emits an 8.78 MeV alpha particle with a half-life of 0.3 microseconds. The Coulomb barrier faced by an alpha particle with this energy is about 26 MeV, so by classical physics it cannot escape at all. Quantum mechanical tunneling gives a small probability that the alpha can penetrate the barrier. To evaluate this probability, the alpha particle inside the nucleus is represented by a free-particle wavefunction subject to the nuclear potential. Inside the barrier, the solution to the Schrodinger equation becomes a decaying exponential. Calculating the ratio of the wavefunction outside the barrier and inside and squaring that ratio gives the probability of alpha emission.

---

Change the decay rate, and you change the energy of the alpha particle. Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification (1)

quote:

---

However, if the alpha has enough energy to surmount this barrier then it will regain that energy as electrostatic repulsion once it gets outside the range of the attractive strong nuclear force. One important consequence of this is that all alpha emissions have at least ~5 MeV energy. Furthermore, half-life is inversely related to decay energy.

---

(bold for empHASis)So what is that relationship? PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.1 Q-value and the Conditions for Radioactive Decay (6)

quote:

---

The mass formula that we have derived in the last chapter helps us understand what the conditions for nuclear instability are and when a decay takes place. A nuclear decay can in principle happen if the total mass of the initial atom is larger than the sum of the masses of all the decay products. The difference between the mass of the initial atom and the sum of the masses of the decay products (multiplied by c²) is called Q-value and determines how much kinetic energy is in the final system.
...
In the case where the nucleus splits in two, the respective condition would be

M(Z,A) > M(Z',A') + M(Z-Z',A-A') (3.2)

---

Multiply by c² and the difference between the two sides of the inequality is the Q-value: With Z = number of neutrons and A = number of protons & neutron, and where Z'=2 and A'=4 for an alpha particle.This equation is the same as the one we started with, rearranged and using different symbology: PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.4 Alpha Decay (7)

quote:

---

For heavy nuclei the binding energy per nucleon decreases with the number of nucleons; this opens the possibility to split a nucleus into two or more parts which have together a lower mass than the initial nucleus. One specific case of this type of nuclear decay is the alpha decay: the alpha particle is a 4He nucleus consisting of two protons and two neutrons. As we can see in Fig. 7 this nuclide has a fairly high binding energy per nucleon compared to the other light nuclei. A process where a nucleus emits an alpha particle (or we could say: is split in two nuclei whereby one of them is a 4He nucleus) is called alpha decay. Such a decay is allowed if condition (3.2) is fulfilled, with Z' = 2 and A' = 4. As before this condition is equivalent to requiring that the Q-value be larger than zero. Fig. 9 shows a diagram with Q-values for the alpha decay of β-stable nuclei. Positive values start to appear for A ≥ 150.

​

While the energy range of alpha-decays observed in nature is relatively narrow (~2 − 12 MeV) the lifetimes span a range from 10 ns to more than 10^19 years. To better understand this behaviour we will investigate the mechanism of this decay a little closer.
...
The decay probability is proportional to the transmission probability and the frequency with which the alpha particle hits the wall. With the probability w(&alpha) that the alpha particle exists as such inside the nucleus and taking into account the time the alpha particle takes to cross the nucleus we find for the decay constant

λ = w(&alpha)v_αe^-G/2R

---

Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes.There should be no characteristic uranium halos with the unique energy of uranium alpha decay from fast decay.The existence of (common) uranium halos then is evidence that shows the physical constants have not changed while they were formed, and their formation in turn is evidence that the earth is old, at least several hundred million years old.Another internally consistent correlation that shows the earth is indeed old.Enjoy.

---

Reference

1. Anon "Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification" Chemistry 410 Lecture 4, University of Washington, Dept of Chemistry, Lecture 4, last modified 16 Apr 2007 accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://depts.washington.edu/.../handout_Lect_4_Alpha_Decay.pdf
   
2. Epina eBook Team "The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission" Lectures in Physics, derived from Benjamin Crowell's Light and Matter textbooks on physics website Last Update: 31 Mar 2006, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission
3. Nave, R "Alpha Barrier Penetration" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/radact.html#c3
4. Nave, R "Alpha Binding Energy" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/radact.html#c4
5. Nave, R "Alpha Tunneling Model" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/alptun.html#c2
6. Rau, Wolfgang "3.1 Q-value and the Conditions for Radioactive Decay" PHYS 490/891, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Winter 2009, Lecture 5, Queens University, last updated 12 Jan 2009, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://www.physics.queensu.ca/...s490/Lecture/Lecture_05.pdf
7. Rau, Wolfgang "3.4 Alpha Decay" PHYS 490/891, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Winter 2009, Lecture 6, Queens University, last updated 12 Jan 2009, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://www.physics.queensu.ca/...s490/Lecture/Lecture_06.pdf
8. Wiens, Roger C. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective." The American Scientific Affiliation: A Fellowship of Christians in Scientists. First edition 1994; revised version 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Radiometric Dating

Edited by RAZD, : added refs, some infoEdited by RAZD, : ) not Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This is great stuff, and the significant part for this thread is the correlation of the reactions timing to the environment, thus validating the age at which sufficient free oxygen was available: This change in the environment also shows up in other ways - the existence of oxidized iron bands, for example.More about the Oklo Reactors can be found here:
http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/ (use the sidebar links for more)Enjoy.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took a bunch of "-" out of quote box to restore page width to normal.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Just a reminder folks, the focus of this thread is on the correlations that confirm and validate all the various dating methods.The vapor canopy is not the topic (I think we must have several on it already - an open one is Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep)The claim that there is more and more evidence for a young earth is a problem of logic and the completeness of explanations.It is easy to find evidence of young parts of an old world -- anyone watching lava flow is seeing the production of new rock formations that will date young, too young to measure with radiometric methods.The problem for young earthers is NOT that there is no evidence of young elements in an old earth, but that it is impossible to explain the elements of an OLD earth with a young earth scenario.These elements exist in great numbers - a few of them are showcased on this thread, because not only are they evidence of an old earth, but they do not rely on radiometric methods, but on systems as simple as counting layers.But they are also showcased because they show other evidence of the past and each method correlates in multiple ways, not just on age.We see (have seen and will continue to see) people throwing out ad hoc conjectures for ways to explain how the ages can be measured incorrectly, but not one person has been able to explain a single correlation between different age measurement mechanisms. It is these correlations that defeat the ad hoc conjectures.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Any old time you want to deal with the real age of the earth, Archangel, you can start here: Message 1.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

From Message 153 Geology- working up from basic principles.: Rhythmite - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Annually laminated deposits or varves are rhythmites with annual periodicity; annual layers of sediment or sedimentary rock are laid down through seasonal variations that result from precipitation, or temperature, which influence debris loads in run off and precipitation rates. Of the many rhythmites found in the geological record, varves are one of the most important and illuminating to studies of past climate change. Varves are amongst the finest resolution events easily recognised in stratigraphy.[1]

---

What further piqued my interest was this tidbit found during googling on the Green River Varves:Page not found - American Atheists

quote:

---

The proof that varves represent annual deposits can be quite compelling. N. J. Berrill, in his book Man's Emerging Mind, tells of a varved shale from the Miocene Epoch of Switzerland:

Certain shales of Miocene age in Switzerland bring that ancient world as vividly to life as any poster advertising the glories of a Swiss canton. For layer upon layer repeat the following sequence: compressed in the bottom of each layer are the blossoms of poplar and camphor trees, symbols of spring; immediately above is a thin region containing winged ants and the seeds of elm and poplar, all of summertime; and this in turn is overlaid by the autumn fruits of camphor, date-plum and wild grape. The whole progression of the seasons, year after year, are there in the earth like an enchantment. Time past was as real as time present. [4]

It should not be thought that Berrill's example is a unique or isolated example. Richard Foster Flint, in his famous textbook, Glacial and Pleistocene Geology, describes more modern varves ("rhythmites") that have been studied in Switzerland:

Rhythmites deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland are thin couplets, each consisting of a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter. Proof that these rhythmites are annual and are therefore varves is established on organic evidence. The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically, being greatest in the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various genera are stratified systematically according to the season of blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the dark ones fall, winter, and spring. Counts of the layers indicate a record extending back to 9,500 yr B.P. ["years before present"]. [5]

---

[4] N. J. Berrill, Man's Emerging Mind, A Premier Book, (Greenwich, Conn: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1957), p. 24.
[5] Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Pleistocene Geology, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957), pp. 293-294.

---

If we can correlate the 11-year sunspot cycle with these Swiss annual varves and show that they match the same cycle in the tree rings for those 9,500 yr BP, it adds one more correlation, and provides a good introduction to varves and a transition to the Lake Suigetsu varves.Enjoy.

---

Hi Brad H, you asked for a special post just for you: ... so here it is -- read the following:

• Message 1 - The introduction and the central thesis, correlations.
• Message 2 - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
• Message 3 - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
• Message 4 - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
• Message 5 - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Message 6 - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Message 7 - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
• Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
• Message 9 - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data
• Message 10 - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
• Message 11 - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
• Message 12 - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

That would be you, so I started this whole thread special just for you, anticipating your request by several years. So you can start with Message 2 and the annual tree rings in Bristlecone Pines.Enjoy

---

Hi Brad, thanks for your first attempt. Which not only were "created adult," but complete with the correlations with seasons that supposedly never existed, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"?Which were not only created adult, but complete with 14C/12C ratios different with each tree ring consistent with the age derived from counting the rings, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"?And which had the correlations in 14C/12C ratios to climate that just happen to match those seasons in the tree rings that supposedly never existed, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"?Your task is to explain the correlations, not why tree rings exist, and creating an old earth does not do this. Well one thing is sure, what you have done is (a) invoked magic instead of science, (b) portrayed your god as a trickster\prankster, and most telling, (c) essentially admitted that you have zero scientific reason for the tree rings and the correlations.We can now laugh when you say there are "problems" with dating, as we know that your problems are hypothetical and based on hypothetical magic rather than facts and science. You'll just keep making stuff up to explain things rather than rely on reality. What you have is a system that works for any fantasy, no matter how bizarre and deluded. Curiously I like to believe in things based on facts and evidence that anyone can check by the methods of science.Myself, I like the view that god wrote the universe for us to understand. This has the advantage of all the evidence pointing towards the truth, rather than a fantasy world that each person can make up to suit themselves. Such as the correlations already mentioned, and which you have so far failed to address. Now, I predict, we get to a series of common creationist PRATTs about various dating "problems" while ignoring the issue of correlations. That's the kind of false information you get from people that lie to you. Please note that he is not talking about the kinds of varves in Lake Suigetsu, so you are a victim of the bait and switch lie. The varves in Lake Suigetsu are formed by alternating layers of diatoms and clay, material that settle at markedly different rates in water.Second, do a little experiment: get some diatomaceous earth from your local gardening store -- this will be full of diatom shells; mix this with clay, shake and let settle. Do any kind of shaking and swirling you like, and let settle.See if you can make alternating layers of clay and diatom shells. Have fun. Note that "Third Sister Lake" is the name of the lake, it is not a sister lake to Lake Suigetsu.Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

quote:

---

Sediment stratigraphy and diatom succession were studied in an 80.5-cm core taken from the deepest part of Third Sister Lake, a small kettle hole in a recently urbanized landscape of southeastern Michigan. Alternating light clay and dark organic bands documented sporadic inputs of clay from outside the basin during rain events, rather than annual laminations. Urban construction activity also disrupted the inflow stream bed and facilitated transport of clay into the lake to generate non-rhythmic banding in the lake's deep hole. Diatom analysis revealed dramatic changes in predominant taxa with sediment depth verifying the non-annual nature of the sediment bands. Observation of halophilic diatom taxa also documented effects of human activity such as road salting on this small, urban lake.

---

Which, curiously, does not occur in Lake Suigetsu.You can download the PDF of the article from the above site, and reading it is instructive.

quote:

---

Introduction

​

Previous descriptions by Eggleton (1931) and Potzger & Wilson (1941) indicated that Third Sister Lake sediments possessed distinct sediment banding of alternating light and dark material. Ludlam (1969) later stated that Third Sister Lake possessed annual laminations or varves, as described for several other lakes (Tippett, 1964; Ludlam, 1969; Saarnisto et al., 1977; Sandman et al., 1990). Coring of Third Sister Lake in 1993 and 1994 revealed that recent sediment bands were not annual, rhythmic varve couplets, but rather laminae of varying thickness. Potzger&Wilson (1941) also reported a maximum depth of 18.5 m at the lake’s deepest point, whereas recent measurements indicated a depth of 17.0 m at the deepest part of the lake (Figure 1).

​

Study site

​

Third Sister Lake (42° 17' N., 83° 48' W.) is located approximately three miles west of Ann Arbor in the Saginaw Forest of Scio Township, Michigan (Figure 1). This small kettle lake likely formed during the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier, which created a terminal moraine in southern Michigan (Reed, 1902). ...
Although Saginaw Forest surrounds Third Sister Lake on a 32 ha tract, significant construction has occurred in the watershed since the 1960s.

​

Discussion

​

Third Sister Lake possessed banded sediments as described by Eggleton (1931), however, the banding pattern of the recent sediments was not annual as previously described (Eggleton, 1931; Potzger &Wilson, 1941; Ludlam, 1969), but event-driven. Variations in band thickness from 0.2 to 5 cmsuggested that the time between depositional events was variable. The mechanism of band formation was one of allochthonous mineral inputs from the intermittent stream feeding the lake. Since stream inputs are instrumental in formation of sediment laminations in certain lakes (Ludlam, 1967), factors affecting stream flow have profound effects on band thickness and frequency. Unusually thick clay bands found in two cores from the deep hole of the lake correlated with disturbances to the stream bed of the inflow. Construction of an office park and retention pond on property adjacent to Saginaw Forest in approximately 1988, resulted in scouring of the stream bed on university property and ultimate deposition of a large pulse of clay into the lake (Charles Olson, 1995, personal communication). This surge of clay material was sufficient to create a delta at the stream mouth and a 5-cm thick clay band in the deep hole.

---

Recent bands are not annual, because they are due to disruption of the watershed, and the article only addresses the recent layers (1 to 28 in an 80.5 cm core). Note that all these layers are post 1931 and thus do not, cannot, address whether the original 1931 study showed annual layers or not.These apples ain't oranges. Which does nothing of the sort, as it is just an argument from incredulity, as well as another misrepresentation. From reading the articles on Lake Suigetsu the top layers are not counted as they appear to be disturbed. This results in a "hanging chronology" (unlike the fixed chronology of the tree rings), but one that still shows thousands of annual layers.The problem for you is three-fold: (1) that there are over 29,100 distinct layers, (2) that these layers are externally correlated with 14C/12C ratios in the tree ring data, and (3) that the annual layers are internally correlated with 14C/12C ratios.You are once again forgetting the issue of correlations: in this case the correlations to the 14C/12C ratio in organic material buried with the varves. Let me put this in perspective for you: Your task is not to present made up reasons for the varves to be something else, but to explain the correlations. The laminations also show climate information (as seen above with the large climate change at about 11,000) which match the climate found in the tree rings, and the 14C/12C ratio in the layers of the lake match those in the tree rings for their period of overlap Now that you have played your PRATT card, how about you deal with the correlations? I have, it is another creationist PRATT. Same for coal and seals and all the others.And curiously, this doesn't explain the correlations between tree ring layers and 14C nor between lake varves and 14C.Your problem is not to make 14C wrong, or tree rings wrong, or lake varves wrong, but to be precisely wrong in exactly the same degree at every year. Off topic argument from incredulity and ignorance. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Please, no Gish Gallops, no PRATTs, and no diversions away from the topic at hand.You need to explain the correlations between the dates and why the different methods consistently validate each other, not just for age but for climate and other events.You have failed to even begin to address the correlations. All you have done is suggest that your god magically makes the world appear different from what you believe it should be, and throw out the usual PRATTS about dating techniques.You have failed in your first attempt to address the issue. I suggest in your second attempt that you refrain from posting a lot of extraneous garbage, pick one specific point and address the correlations related to that specific point.Enjoy. Yes, it's called focus on the topic at hand. Explain the correlations between the various dating mechanisms. That will be interesting to see, as what I have said is that you need to confront the evidence for an old earth, and explain the correlations that validate old age: Edited by RAZD, : added

---

Hi Coyote and Manifest,Please note that this thread not only provides correlations for 14C dating but several other methods as well.I invite Manifest to read the thread and see if he can figure out how all these methods can be wrong but come up with the same results.It's the correlations that are the issue, rather than any one particular system.In the case of 14C there are correlations with tree rings and with annual lake varves and with climate and event markers in each of these systems.Enjoy.

---

Welcome to the fray RyanVanGo. Sad to say, I don't think you will find evidence for this, and the reasons are many: all the evidence that points to the earth being billions of years old.See the posts in this thread detailing not just the evidence for an earth significantly older than 10,000 years, but the correlations between the methods that validate each other, because there is no reason for these correlations ... without age. Kent Hovind is not a reliabe source of information. For instance his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed is contradicted by his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed. I can provide details, but that should be on another thread.This thread is about how various different counting methods show that the earth is significantly older than 10,000 years, and that the correlations between all these methods is explained by an old earth.Enjoy.

---

The thread Evidence for a recent flood has recently reached summation mode, and I am bringing it up here as this thread contains evidence that refutes a recent flood, or any world wide flood within the time frame of the evidence herein presented. See Message 1 for that information. Portillo had raised the question of using a blender to recreate sediment layers. The problem with this "experiment" is that it will only create layers sorted by sedimentation rates, not alternating layers with short and long sedimentation rates.The clay suspended in the water flowing into lake Suigetsu takes a long time to settle out and this occurs continuously, through the summer and winter; the diatoms on the other hand settle out very fast by comparison, but the shells are only produced during the summer growth blooms and only fall to the bottom when they die in the fall. This results in layers of only clay alternating with layers of mostly diatom mixed with some clay.See Message 5 and Message 21 for more information.However, the major problem for creationists to explain is not how each of the various age measuring systems could have individually malfunctioned in some way, but why they correlate with dates and events across the methods.Enjoy.