Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

Kofh2u, isn't that the position of most creationists? We see creation expressed in science, and see flaws in common scientific arguments. Its not that we oppose science, we just oppose the unscientific methodology of discarding alternative theories before testing them in an unbiased fashion.If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, just a communal commitment to scientific truths. Could you give a hint how your views differ from mainstream creationism. Just for my interest. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I can see why you would have that impression, and its your honest appraisal of the situation, but creationists see the obvious bias that you may be unwittingly supporting.For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought. So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.

I can understand that is your perspective. Let's see how this discussion unfolds.
(ps close DNA between two outwardly similar creatures is no proof of evolution. Its like seeing similarities of the technology inside two cellphones and concluding they have a common ancestor. A common designer would reflect similarities too)

Oh really?? Even if some of their researchers are well qualified and make sense?

Hi Coyote, I apologise for taking so long to reply to your post, I suspect that this thread will take more research than other threads and this is why I have been delaying my response. Hopefully I have the time now to focus here.My main problem with carbon dating is not one based on religious bias, but on scientific principles. Often when we measure modern rates , we assume these rates have applied to the past. Apparently carbon dating has been adjusted for the past strength of the magnetic field, but I am wondering how this is done, and if a proper relationship has been established between fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field and the production of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known — while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]"The strength of a magnet is directly related to its "magnetic moment",McElhinny and Senanayake discovered that 2000 years ago the earth's dipole moment was 50% higher than today, indicating a significantly stronger magnetic field back then. Since then the following study showed that the magnetic dipole moment was twice as strong 2000 years ago :
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000GeoJI.140..158Y, and then weak back in the 5000/6000 bp period. This article from Scripps Institution claims an approximate 35 % increase for the period 1000bp until 3000 bp: http://igpphome.ucsd.edu/...ublications/Preprints/dipole.pdfWe know from the Wikipedia article that changes to the magnetic field cause "significant variation in carbon-14 production rates" and "changes of the carbon cycle make these effects difficult to tease out". So the relationship between carbon production and the magnetic field is significant but the exact effects are unknown, and the magnetic field was significantly stronger 2000 years ago and earlier.Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : Adding further evidenceEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

How can you calibrate if the relationship between carbon-14 production and the strength of the magnetic field has not been established. changes to the carbon cycle make the effects difficult to tease out:As quoted already:
"The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]"

This thread is about dates. Other threads are about evolution itself. Kindly start a thread if you have come up with anything that proves evolution.

Thanks everyone for explaining about the calibration.Suddenly the discussion in another thread about Rohl's revised chronology becomes highly relevant, because if carbon dating has been calibrated against incorrect recent historical dates, the extent of the carbon effect could be exponentially overemphasized for the earlier dates.As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement. I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.
Varves are often mistaken as annual, when there is a possible tidal development. Lake Suigetsu is one example where on closer analysis the varves are more obviously tidal in nature. They were formed mainly by diatom blooms, some diatoms are freshwater diatoms, sensitive to salinity. Until a few hundred years ago, these lakes were mainly freshwater, but being so close to the ocean would have been affected by rising salinity every spring tide. The ~50 000 years of varves should quite simply be divided by 12.2 to reflect the 12 spring tides a year.As for dendrochronolgy, the concept is often cited, but no convincing argument has been put forward for those periods when an overlap of ring sequences is not easily matched between trees. ie easy to make mistakes. Hoping someone can post a convincing set of data to show the reliability of dendrochronology. Also taking into account some trees show two rings per year if there are two rainfall seasons.Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying

Which particular items? Can you post a link or excerpt so I can see if Rohl's revised dating would be relevant? Fair enough. Please present your evidence that carbon dating has been calibrated to other specific known historical dates. Once you have presented that evidence I will see if it has been cherry picked. I never consulted creationist literature at all. These lakes are all very close to the sea, look at the pictures:
http://www.env.go.jp/...d/pamph/ramsarpamphen/mikatagoko.pdfSaltwater intrusion - Wikipedia
Groundwater intrusion is a common occurrence along coastlines, and owing to Lake Suigetsu's proximity to large bodies of saltwater its highly unlikely it was unaffected by the rising marine water table during spring tides.http://www.phycologia.org/...s/10.2216/i0031-8884-42-3-292.1
Stephanodiscus populations were studied from a sediment core from Lake Suigetsu, central Japan. The cells were assignable to two modern freshwater species, S. suzukii and S. pseudosuzukii,This study shows that freshwater diatoms are susceptible to salinity changes (one point they are proving is that diatom shells can be a good indicator of past salinity levels)
Error 404 | NDSUThose diatom layers were assumed to be annual, but the studies do not incorporate an explanation for brackish water contamination during spring tides.

Interesting stuff, but hardly gaining widespread acceptance.
Stonehenge | Gerald S. Hawkins | The New York Review of BooksRohl's revised chronology is however gaining a foothold, albeit slowly. Its very difficult to argue against his conclusions, because he highlights obvious errors in current chronology, and these are easily understandable to the layman.

If you don't post supporting evidence for radiocarbon dating being calibrated against dendrochronology I will regard your point as unverified. You brought it up to defend carbon dating as accurately calibrated, now kindly post your evidence of the relevance of dendrochronology.

Could you kindly post your evidence for this comment? A small error in calibration in recent history (eg 300 year error) can effect the calibration formulas which in turn can effect dates exponentially. Carbon 14 is only found in small traces, you need to be extremely accurate on the traces of carbon 14 found in the 2000 BC to 4000 BC era to then accurately apply a formula to small traces of carbon in much earlier periods.(exponential effect)

Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual? Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....??You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves. You cannot use carbon dating to verify carbon dating, that makes no sense. Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny.

I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates. Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology. Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact.The consilience is simply cherry picking. Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis. This would an understandable approach, but unfortunately is not very scientific.And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.