Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

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

---

Just to be sure that you know where I am coming from, please allow me to give you a very quick YEC lesson on creation. God's word tells us that He created the "heavens" and the Earth first,. Gen. 1:1. On day one we see God moving on the face of the already existing Earth and making light visible from down here, and so on. If you keep in mind that everything is being told from the point of view of someone standing on Earth and observing, and not from outer space, then you won’t get confused with the so called creation of light and then the later creation of the sun. The sun the moon and stars would have already existed, being created with the creation of the heavens which existed before God's Spirit moved on the face of the waters. From an earthly perspective they only become visible as God peals back the layers of dense cloud cover. At the point that light appears on Earth it does not say that God created the light "then," it just says that He said let there BE light. This is likely just the point when light was first became visible from Earth's surface as several layers of cloud covers dissipated. Then as the week progresses we are told He creates all life and finally man and woman. In all of this, I want to point out an often overlooked fact. Even though many of these created things are just newly formed, God did not create them in their infantile state. That is to say, He did not make a male child and a female child nor did He create baby trees or baby whales. All living things are created in an adult state because of obvious practical reasons. And likewise In many cases it was necessary to create structures that have the "appearance" of age, for practical reasons. I stress this because some try to say that this then means that the Creator was being deceitful. No He was not being deceitful, He was being practical. My point is that things such as your tree rings are not a good gage to go by if the trees were created adults.Some will protest that this is like invoking "Last Thursday-ism." Which is the claim that if God created certain features to "look old," then who's to say that God did not just create everything last Thursday, complete with vivid past childhood memories and all? Well in answer to that I reply, yes that is exactly what this is LIKE. I stress the word "like" because if in fact we could prove God, and know that He is, then we should accept whatever He tells us. If He told us He did in fact create all of us last Thursday, and we knew Him to be all knowing and powerful, then who are we to doubt Him? Well, God didn’t tell us He created us last Thursday, but He did actually tell us that it was within the last 6 to 10 thousand years. Of course this invokes the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?" and we know that is not what this threads topic is about, so I won’t trespass with that topic. Now let me pause and make something else very clear. I am not saying that tree rings and star light and other processes that some use as age clues wouldn't help support an old Earth scenario if all the other more internal processes actually agreed with them. But there are many clues that tell a very different story, and there are also some big glaring problems with a lot of the processes often touted to be evidence of an old Earth.Example, you mentioned the varves of the lake in Japan,Lake Suigetsu. But there are 5 big issues that cast serious doubts on this "age evidence." First, Glacial Geologist Dr. Quigley seems to think that the so called varves are actually only multiple turbite sequences that have nothing at all to do with seasonal controls. Second, Further studies of a third sister lake revealed that the original "seasonal" driven interpretations of the layers was wrong. The study revealed that the layers were not annual as previously described, but were event driven. Thirdly, in the two key papers that use the "varves" to date a 40,000 year chronology, one starts at 1664 or earlier, and the other in 1729. Which calls into question, If the laminations are annual, then why are they no longer still forming? Fourth, geologist Glenn Morton points out that the laminations are not what you would expect in still water deposition, and are more likely laid down by turbidity currents. And fifth, the fact that two separate core samples taken from the same lake and close to the same area did not match up. They were not even close. This is not evidence of still water annual deposits, but rather of deposits laid by tsunami like weather or earthquakes or by periodic heavy rain. All are conditions that Japan is well known for.Likewise are similar problems with many of your old Earth date scenarios, but the key I should point out is that many are making big assumptions from the start. Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. B) You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty measurements?I mentioned above, other processes that tell us a different story about the Earth's age, for example, the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth. The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found. The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. Surprisingly, C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "ape" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development? I mean archeology shows that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years. My point is, if we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 10 thousand years as the Bible says.Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%. In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible. There are some scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons. In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture."Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second. Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation. Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 10 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds. The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something just doesn't mesh.

You make a lot of points there - not all of which are on-topic. (Some of them belong in the PRATT's topic like the magnetic field decay argument and the ludicrous population growth argument).Perhaps it would be best to pick out one or two for more detailed discussion in this thread and go to other threads for some of the rest that don't belong. What do you say ?

Wow you guys really split hairs on this forum don't you? I was already asked to come to this thread from another thread because the topic of the age of the Earth came up. Razd wanted me to come here and express my reasons for believing in a young Earth...which I have done. I am not really wanting to split off from my original topic any further. I'm too "one track minded!"

Well it isn't true that you were invited to discuss any age of the Earth argument here. In fact you were invited here to address the evidence presented in the earlier posts. And the reason for that was beacuse the topic you were in was getting too fragmented already. And now you are insisting on fragmenting this one Sorry, I'm not going to be part of any attempt to bury the evidence.

Well your memory and mine seem to differ greatly. I'm on my cell right now but if you like, later I'll cite links 2 back up what I said. Razd invited me 2 share my "wrench" that destroys OE ideas.

A) Is it safe for us to assume that the soldier had not earlier been working a million times faster or slower?B) Is it safe to assume that there were not a million times the number of previously peeled potatoes as a soldier could be expected to peel under what we believe to be normal circumstances?C) Is it safe to assume that there were a million soldiers peeling potatoes just prior to our arrival having left with no other evidence of their existence?Would you also suggest that if I were to answer the question "How long have you left the TV on without being in there?" with either 230 years or 7 milliseconds, my mum shouldn't doubt my sincerity?You are suggesting that we would not notice a million fold error of dating.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

It's not my memory you are disagreeing with. It's RAZD's Message 33 above which I carefully read to check before posting.

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

---

Creationists keep bringing up the phony issue of residual C14 in objects too old to contain C14, and they use this to support their mistaken idea of a young earth. Their "issue" with radiocarbon dating is based on 1) their lack of understanding of the AMS method and the many possible sources of C14 at those incredibly small quantities, and 2) wishful thinking.Here is a long and detailed article on the subject. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?A pertinent sample:

Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.

​

If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be intrinsic radiocarbon.

​

The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s intrinsic radiocarbon model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.

Read the entire article and you will see that this is a phony issue, and shows creationists' misunderstanding of the AMS method rather than evidence of a young earth.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hello Brad H. And therein lies the rub, no? Since, as yet, there is no way to prove God exists, it would logically follow that other avenues of explanation be explored in the meantime. But that's not what those of certain "faiths" do. Instead, at best they assume God exists, and at worst pretend God is a proven fact.Thus, instead of exploring this exhaustive thread which carries within it all the truth needed to shrug off a majority of the PRATT garbage you just spewed, you wish to remain ignorant in light of the information staring you in the face, just like most other YECs. You do this for no other reason than to maintain this illusion that everything we see around us is either not as it seems, or has been contrived by a God intent on deceit on a universal scale. Last Thursdayism, indeed.I urge you, Brad H, to at least attempt to read and mentally digest the information here, which is presented pretty much especially for people like you. Folks who may be very reasonable about most worldly things, the exception being any valid evidence which may serve to disprove certain dogmatic views of one religion or other.I admit I was no YEC when I happened on the information here and on other parts of this forum. But actually looking at the evidence here and at links to other unbiased websites (not just swallowing half-truths and outright lies by questionable creationist websites, which regrettably is what seems to have happened to you, Brad H) has only served to add credibility to what I before only believed may have been true.Open your mind, Brad H. Read a little, here. You sound like a well-read, intelligent person, just maybe a little deceived by the YEC con-artists. Look at the facts presented here as objectively as you can concerning the correlation of all the different lines of evidence available (it's presented here in one nice package) and then if you still contend that the YEC scenario is the hands-down winner...well. We'll cross that bridge later, yes?Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

In the Ark/Flood thread you responded to my post with this: 1) The RATE study, funded and run by creationists, attempted to show that the decay rate varied. It failed, and they had to admit that the rate has been constant for hundreds of millions of years.a, b, d) We are aware of the fluctuation in the atmospheric content of C14. This was first described by de Vries (1958), just a few years after the development of the C14 dating method. To account for this, a calibration curve has been worked out using tree ring dating and several other methods of correlation. The atmospheric variation was found to be less than 10% at the greatest.c) Carbon is absorbed into living organisms from the environment. The C14 in the ocean matches that in the atmosphere fairly closely (see below). Creeks and rivers are different; they can have a lot more old carbon from limestone, and thus are not good dating materials. This means old limestone could alter freshwater shellfish, making them look much older than they are. There is a much smaller effect from "reservoir" carbon in oceans, but that is easily identified and accounted for. A lot of study has been devoted to dating charcoal and marine shells from the exact same proveniences (hearths, for example).2) You (or actually the source you cut-and-pasted from) are thinking of other forms of radiometric dating, not radiocarbon dating.3) We do not assume that. We constantly look for contamination, and eliminate it. We date multiple specimens--my last large archaeological project produced 31 radiocarbon dates.Now, I typed that from my own knowledge, without having to hunt the web. You, apparently, know nothing about the subject and are forced to cut-and-paste material from creationist websites and you have no idea how accurate it is. In this case, it is not very accurate at all.Care to try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

---