Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 106 of 224 (709144)
10-22-2013 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
09-09-2013 8:13 PM


Re: Mindspawn keeps ducking, dodging, and weaving
You keep asking for more and more evidence, while denying, obfuscating, or ignoring any evidence we provide.
So, here is some evidence. Let's see if you can deal with it without just trying to hand-wave it away.
Remember, your credibility (what little you have left) depends on the evidence you provide. Just coming up with "what-ifs" is not evidence. Your religious beliefs are not evidence.
The credibility of this whole site is under question due to the extent that Percy allows unnecessary insults and gives insufficient protection to those that support creationism. He continuously points out flaws in the few creationist's logic, and not the flaws in the many flawed evolutionist's logic. (not from everyone, but there are a few evo's that continuously post flawed logic and Percy says nothing to them)
Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt
This link calibrates the tree rings with Egyptian chronology and admits the calibration has errors and is not precise. Also there are flaws in the mainstream Egyptian chronology as pointed out by Rohl.
Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
Tree rings are directly affected by moisture in the soil caused from rainfall. In most areas even between rainfalls the soil maintains some moisture during the rainy season. Thus there will be continuous growth during the rainfall season, and then stunted growth during the dry season, causing an annual tree ring.
In certain areas that are particularly dry, there is little moisture in the soil. Thus the tree would naturally display a thin growth ring for every period of rainfall, because it cannot sustain its growth when the soil dries out. These trees can have more than one tree ring every year because there is not enough moisture in the soil to grow between the periods of rainfall. The bristlecone pines are in such areas.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2013 8:13 PM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 224 (709145)
10-22-2013 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 3:05 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
The question is not whether there is some small amount of saltwater intrusion, the question is whether the varves count is significantly off as a result. You've given no reason to think that this is at all likely. Even worse this assumed error must closely match the assumed error in C14 dating, an unlikely coincidence as well. So I think we can dismiss your concern as a phantom invented solely as an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating - and utterly failing to understand that it is insufficient to discredit one calibration - you need to discredit every calibration covering the period of your concern. When that additional data is taken into account there is no likelihood at all of a major problem at a single site going undetected.
On another point I do not think that we can be reasonably expected to be silent on your tendency to distort, misrepresent and even invent facts. I grant that commenting on your tactics may cause you some upset, but permitting you to get away with it would sabotage discussion. The best solution all round is for you to take the effort to be honest and accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:05 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 108 of 224 (709146)
10-22-2013 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
10-22-2013 3:32 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
The question is not whether there is some small amount of saltwater intrusion, the question is whether the varves count is significantly off as a result. You've given no reason to think that this is at all likely. Even worse this assumed error must closely match the assumed error in C14 dating, an unlikely coincidence as well. So I think we can dismiss your concern as a phantom invented solely as an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating - and utterly failing to understand that it is insufficient to discredit one calibration - you need to discredit every calibration covering the period of your concern. When that additional data is taken into account there is no likelihood at all of a major problem at a single site going undetected.
Saltwater kills freshwater diatoms, these diatoms can form a mass covering over water. Its highly likely that saltwater intrusion would periodically kill off the lower layers during high tides. That is all I need to show, a highly likely process that would cause layers of diatom shells that are not annual. This all happened until a few hundred years ago when they built a canal, so we cannot observe the process now, but the process I am suggesting is a strong possibility that should not have been ignored, not a "phantom" at all.
Radiocarbon dates of marine shells are not reliable and have to be re-calibrated:
http://www.folk.uib.no/...gerud%20and%20Gulliksen%201975.PDF
Diatoms naturally produce carbon. So we have to be careful to take that carbon producing effect into account when dating shells of creatures that produce carbon:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080123150516.htm
Diatoms, most of which are far too tiny to see without magnification, are incredibly important in the global carbon cycle, says Thomas Mock, a University of Washington postdoctoral researcher in oceanography and lead author of the paper. During photosynthesis, diatoms turn carbon dioxide into organic carbon and, in the process, generate oxygen. They are responsible for 40 percent of the organic carbon produced in the world's oceans each year.
So the carbon ratio is most likely overexpressed in these shells, as is often observed in organisms that produce shells, combined with an overestimated timeframe, produces the "co-incidence".
On another point I do not think that we can be reasonably expected to be silent on your tendency to distort, misrepresent and even invent facts. I grant that commenting on your tactics may cause you some upset, but permitting you to get away with it would sabotage discussion. The best solution all round is for you to take the effort to be honest and accurate.
I do take the effort to be honest and accurate. Let's discuss science from now.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2013 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2013 4:20 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:14 AM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 224 (709148)
10-22-2013 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 3:54 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
quote:
Radiocarbon dates of marine shells are not reliable and have to be re-calibrated:
http://www.folk.uib.no/...gerud%20and%20Gulliksen%201975.PDF
Hardly a general problem with radiocarbon - the problem and the cause are well understood.
quote:
Diatoms naturally produce carbon. So we have to be careful to take that carbon producing effect into account when dating shells of creatures that produce carbon
No, they do not produce carbon (and the whole idea of diatoms engaging in elemental transmutation is rather silly), indeed the article says that they get it from the atmosphere.
quote:
I do take the effort to be honest and accurate. Let's discuss science from now.
I cannot see that this claim is consistent with the silly misrepresentation of the Science Daily article, which isn't even relevant to the question of radiocarbon dating anything but diatoms (and if anything suggests that they would be better material for radiocarbon dating than I would expect)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:54 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 110 of 224 (709154)
10-22-2013 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
10-22-2013 4:20 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Hardly a general problem with radiocarbon - the problem and the cause are well understood.
quote:
Diatoms naturally produce carbon. So we have to be careful to take that carbon producing effect into account when dating shells of creatures that produce carbon
No, they do not produce carbon (and the whole idea of diatoms engaging in elemental transmutation is rather silly), indeed the article says that they get it from the atmosphere.
Thanks for correcting me, yes they produce organic carbon from carbon dioxide. This does create a problem for radiocarbon dating because fossils from organisms that produce organic carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates. Was this done with the diatom fossils in Lake Suigetsu?
I cannot see that this claim is consistent with the silly misrepresentation of the Science Daily article, which isn't even relevant to the question of radiocarbon dating anything but diatoms (and if anything suggests that they would be better material for radiocarbon dating than I would expect)
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2013 4:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2013 6:12 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 112 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 7:54 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-22-2013 3:02 PM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 224 (709155)
10-22-2013 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 6:04 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
quote:
Thanks for correcting me, yes they produce organic carbon from carbon dioxide. This does create a problem for radiocarbon dating because fossils from organisms that produce organic carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates. Was this done with the diatom fossils in Lake Suigetsu?
It only has to be done if the source of the carbon is NOT the atmosphere. Anyway, I am unaware of any dating of diatoms from Lake Suigetsu, so the question does not arise.
quote:
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.
The diatoms provide the marking used for counting the varves. This does not make the carbon content particularly relevant. And surely a commitment to honesty and accuracy requires withdrawing your speculation once it is shown to be untenable. As had already been done before your return to this thread today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 112 of 224 (709162)
10-22-2013 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 6:04 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Thanks for correcting me, yes they produce organic carbon from carbon dioxide. This does create a problem for radiocarbon dating because fossils from organisms that produce organic carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates. Was this done with the diatom fossils in Lake Suigetsu?
Showing your ignorance again. No, it was not done because it was not necessary. Fossils from marine organisms that incorporate carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates, because their shells are at least partly derived from deep-ocean carbon sources that are not in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon sources. The diatoms in lake Suigetsu are not marine.
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.
You need to look up the history of lake Suigetsu. When the varves were formed it had no connection to a source of salt water. If you want to invoke water table seepage, show us the numbers. What you make up doesn't count. What you can demonstrate does.
And, of course like all YECs you can't bring yourself to address the consilience of the varve counts with dendrochronology and 14C dating and the relatively recent correlation with Ar-Ar dating of tephras and palaeoclimatology (Tephra).
Until you address this consilience you haven't even got a hypothesis.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:04 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:29 AM JonF has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 113 of 224 (709180)
10-22-2013 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 3:09 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I am really only interested in science
No you aren't. All you do is deny what science has shown. Either you are purposely misrepresenting the truth or you are in extreme denial of your won motivations and actions.
Oh BTW, whining is not a particularly strong debating tactic.
and will not put up with this.
Are you going to run away? How about trying a cogent, logical argument based upon the facts for once.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:09 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 114 of 224 (709181)
10-22-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 3:14 AM


Re: Bump
Deleted
Childish and petty
Sorry
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:14 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 115 of 224 (709187)
10-22-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 3:54 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Radiocarbon dates of marine shells are not reliable and have to be re-calibrated:
http://www.folk.uib.no/...gerud%20and%20Gulliksen%201975.PDF
All radiocarbon dates are calibrated. Calibration converts the conventional age into a calendar age.
Marine shells have to be corrected for what is called the reservoir effect. This is because some of the carbon they absorb is older, "reservoir" carbon from deep water. That carbon is not in contact with the atmosphere. This correction, like the rest of radiocarbon dating, is well-understood and easily done. Scientists just collect modern (but pre-atomic bomb) marine shells and determine the "offset" in any given area.
Your objection, then, that marine shells are "unreliable" is incorrect. With the reservoir correction they are quite reliable.
Diatoms naturally produce carbon. So we have to be careful to take that carbon producing effect into account when dating shells of creatures that produce carbon:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080123150516.htm
Diatoms, most of which are far too tiny to see without magnification, are incredibly important in the global carbon cycle, says Thomas Mock, a University of Washington postdoctoral researcher in oceanography and lead author of the paper. During photosynthesis, diatoms turn carbon dioxide into organic carbon and, in the process, generate oxygen. They are responsible for 40 percent of the organic carbon produced in the world's oceans each year.
Your understanding of this paper in relation to radiocarbon dating is flawed. It simply does not say what you think it does, nor does what it says have anything to do with radiocarbon dating.
The diatoms are simply converting the carbon from one form into another. They are not changing the ratio of the isotopes.
So the carbon ratio is most likely overexpressed in these shells, as is often observed in organisms that produce shells, combined with an overestimated timeframe, produces the "co-incidence".
This is absolutely wrong. The ratio of the isotopes is not changed.
It is incredibly difficult to discuss these matters with you when you simply google up an article, read a few lines, and jump to the conclusion that the article supports your argument when in reality it says something entirely different.
You are demonstrating that you simply do not know enough about science in general, and radiocarbon dating in particular, to carry on a meaningful debate.
Edited by Coyote, : spelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:54 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 1:40 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 119 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:16 AM Coyote has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 116 of 224 (709207)
10-22-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
10-22-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
He/she thinks that the Lake Suigetsu varve 14C dates are way off because no marine reservoir correction was applied.
Can't tell the difference between marine and lacustrine. And consilience with other methods? Pah!
And he/she doesn't even know that the Suigetsu diatoms are not dated by 14C. The dating is done in plant material embedded within the varves. I missed that in my previous replies. See Radiocarbon (14C) Calibration
Edited by JonF, : Add last paragraph.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:14 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 117 of 224 (709210)
10-22-2013 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 6:04 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
mindspawn writes:
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.
"The radiocarbon in the leaf fossils preserved in the sediment of Lake Suigetsu comes directly from the atmosphere and, as such, is not affected by the processes that can slightly change the radiocarbon levels found in marine sediments or cave formations."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2012/10/121018141834.htm
As others have mentioned, they dated terrestrial organic material such as leaves, twigs, and even insects. They didn't carbon date the diatoms. What they used the diatoms for was measuring annual deposits. Each spring and summer there is a bloom of diatoms which produces a white deposit. In the fall/winter there is less diatom growth so the deposits are dominated by darker colored clays. Therefore, a white diatom layer and a darker clay layer makes one year. This is what it looks like:
So what they did was compare the carbon date of the terrestrial organic material to the layer defined by the counting of diatom layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:04 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 4:31 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 120 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:23 AM Taq has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 118 of 224 (709217)
10-22-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-22-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.
As others have mentioned, they dated terrestrial organic material such as leaves, twigs, and even insects. They didn't carbon date the diatoms. What they used the diatoms for was measuring annual deposits. Each spring and summer there is a bloom of diatoms which produces a white deposit. In the fall/winter there is less diatom growth so the deposits are dominated by darker colored clays. Therefore, a white diatom layer and a darker clay layer makes one year.
He/she is proposing that the layers themselves are not annual, but are deposited much faster by some "tidal water table related die-offs". Of course there are holes in this you could drive a truck through. E.g. how do tides affect a lake, that's not connected to the sea, through the water table? How do tides even transmit through the water table? How do tides affect the 14C dates of embedded plant material in exact step with the diatom blooms and die-offs? How do tides cause diatom blooms and then die-offs? How do tides in Japan cause trees all over the world to lay down thousands of rings per year in exact step with the varves in Suigetsu? Why does the tephra layer correlated with a nearby volcano date by Ar-Ar almost exactly the same as the 14C date of that layer?
The fact that he/she doesn't know what's being dated by 14C is a separate major error.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-22-2013 3:02 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:56 AM JonF has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 119 of 224 (709245)
10-23-2013 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
10-22-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
All radiocarbon dates are calibrated. Calibration converts the conventional age into a calendar age.
Marine shells have to be corrected for what is called the reservoir effect. This is because some of the carbon they absorb is older, "reservoir" carbon from deep water. That carbon is not in contact with the atmosphere. This correction, like the rest of radiocarbon dating, is well-understood and easily done. Scientists just collect modern (but pre-atomic bomb) marine shells and determine the "offset" in any given area.
Your objection, then, that marine shells are "unreliable" is incorrect. With the reservoir correction they are quite reliable.
Thanks for pointing this out in a civil manner. It appears its leaves that were carbon dated, not the diatom shells.
This is absolutely wrong. The ratio of the isotopes is not changed.
It is incredibly difficult to discuss these matters with you when you simply google up an article, read a few lines, and jump to the conclusion that the article supports your argument when in reality it says something entirely different.
You are demonstrating that you simply do not know enough about science in general, and radiocarbon dating in particular, to carry on a meaningful debate.
I admit I am partially ignorant on radiocarbon dating and do Google a lot, and am still learning. While learning I also probe a lot to test the validity of an argument. I feel that is what this forum is supposed to be about, promoting "understanding through discussion" but I do understand if you no longer wish to discuss this. With a bit of patience we can get through this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:14 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2013 10:39 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 120 of 224 (709246)
10-23-2013 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-22-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
"The radiocarbon in the leaf fossils preserved in the sediment of Lake Suigetsu comes directly from the atmosphere and, as such, is not affected by the processes that can slightly change the radiocarbon levels found in marine sediments or cave formations."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2012/10/121018141834.htm
As others have mentioned, they dated terrestrial organic material such as leaves, twigs, and even insects. They didn't carbon date the diatoms. What they used the diatoms for was measuring annual deposits. Each spring and summer there is a bloom of diatoms which produces a white deposit. In the fall/winter there is less diatom growth so the deposits are dominated by darker colored clays. Therefore, a white diatom layer and a darker clay layer makes one year. This is what it looks like:
Thanks for pointing out that they dated the leaves, not the diatoms.
Regarding the white layer , I assume this is from the increased concentration of shells. This particular lake system is incredibly close to the sea, and freshwater diatoms are susceptible to saline water. Why are you so certain that the white layers were not caused by diatom die-offs from increased salt water in the water table during spring tides?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-22-2013 3:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 10-23-2013 10:14 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 10-24-2013 5:10 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2013 8:57 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024