Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

Well, he is close to a testable scientific hypothesis. Nothing wrong with exploring the implications of a hypothesis. He's very likely unaware that hypotheses such as that have been formed, tested, and proved false.

.Edited by JonF, : Damn mouse randomly double-clicks and double posted.

Percy writes: It sure is. He's an Electrical Engineer who obtained a PhD in Geophysics and tells untruths about basic geology. Well, I don't think that a creationist writing 'more in peer-reviewed literature' than any other creationist really is something to be proud of. Anyone can start from nothing. And keep on doing nothing. Yes, he does tell untruths about everything.

You concluded with, "Not much training in Geology at all." The overall result was a characterization of Baumgardner as not having the necessary training and not being knowledgeable about geology, and I don't believe that's accurate. I think he's extremely well trained and knowledgeable. His success in publishing in the peer-reviewed literature where some of his better papers have collected a fair number of citations reflects this.If we're going to be the side that embraces truth and accuracy then we have to give our rivals their due.--Percy

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

Radiocarbon dates are calibrated against items of known age. Your objection about this Rohl fellow means nothing, as you would know if you had studied the literature dealing with calibration. Sorry, wrong. Your "it is possible" means nothing unless backed up by some facts. You have presented no facts. From your responses, you couldn't see evidence if it contradicted your a priori beliefs, no matter what the evidence. Do you have any cite for this other than creationist literature? Otherwise, your argument is another "what if" that means nothing. So, your argument against dendrochronology rests on "they might have made mistakes?" That's it? Another "what if." Means nothing.You are grasping at straws to keep your belief in ancient tribal myths alive in the face of clear evidence that disproves them. You have no real evidence, but just keep coming up with endless "what ifs," as if those "what ifs" were some form of evidence disproving what science has documented. (They aren't.)Sadly, you remind me of this fellow:

quote:

---

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.

---

That's really desperate clutching at straws there. What makes you think that Rohl's ideas are even relevant ?

quote:

---

As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement.

---

Is it ? Are you REALLY going to stoop to conspiracy theories ?

quote:

---

I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.

---

Probably because you dismiss them out of hand at the slightest excuse.

quote:

---

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.

---

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that. And explain how it's even possible given the results of the study (is it really plausible that ALL carbon dates are wrong by a factor of 12.2 ?). Don't forget to deal with the other data used as cross-checks. I don't think that Lake Soppensee is likely to be tidal !Obviously you haven't thought about it, you're just thoughtlessly throwing out an excuse without even considering whether it could reasonably be true.

quote:

---

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.

---

And more clutching at straws. Even under your assumptions C14 dating should work as a RELATIVE dating system, so we can be reasonably sure of any sequences used in C14 calibration. Any major errors should be obvious.Occasionally producing 2 rings a year is hardly a big enough problem if you are trying to argue that the dates are wrong by a factor of 12! That should be obvious.This brings me to the difference between scientists and cranks. Cranks assume that they are unquestionably right and look for excuses to declare that they are right (and even there they are careless). Scientists try to see the whole picture and understand what is going on. This is why science is so often right and cranks are so often wrong.

The required error would have to be at least 800 percent. That would be enough to allow those cave paintings in France and Spain to be post flood. Because they surely could not have survived any world wide flood.

I thought I would throw in a verification of Carbon dating that I came across today in my reading.

quote:

---

One of the most striking examples of different dating methods confirming each other is Stonehenge. C-14 dates show that Stonehenge was gradually built over the period from 1900 BC to 1500 BC, long before the Druids, who claimed Stonehenge as their creation, came to England.

​

Astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon (for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer). Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C-14 dates.

---

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)

A few calibrations against historical dates have been done. Almost all of carbon dating's calibration is done against other methods of dating the same samples, notably dendrochronology, varves, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms, δ[sup]18[/sup]O in ice cores. These other methods are all consilient; they give the same results to within a small margin of error. If you want to claim that varves aren't annual, you need to explain why dendrochronology and U-Th dating and δ[sup]18[/sup]O agree with it. And the same for all the methods. Given the consilience the simplest explanation is that the dating methods are all measuring the same thing, real time elapsed.If you want to proffer another explanation, you must explain the consilience.As for the data, you can have as much as you want from Radiocarbon vol 51 no 4 and IntCal09 Supplemental Data.You should also look at Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1996 Progress Report

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.