Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,052 Year: 5,309/9,624 Month: 334/323 Week: 178/160 Day: 14/38 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 2766 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 121 of 224 (709247)
10-23-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by JonF
10-22-2013 7:54 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
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.
Thanks for pointing that out. Its since been shown to me that the leaves were carbon dated, and not the diatom shells, and so my point about the shells is irrelevant.
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.
I did look up the history, that is why my emphasis is on spring tides and the water table.
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.
The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 7:54 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 10-23-2013 10:22 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 127 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2013 3:33 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2013 9:05 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2766 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 122 of 224 (709251)
10-23-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by JonF
10-22-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
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?
I explained this to Percy in post 102. Please feel free to reply to that post, the links explain the seawater tidal effects on the water table. Freshwater diatoms do die when exposed to seawater, and with Lake Suigetsu being so close to the sea, the water table would be effected by salt water, its only elevated water tables or water tables far from coasts that are not affected by seawater in the water table. Seawater is heavier than freshwater, the bottom layers of the diatom bloom would have experienced the greatest die-offs at the peaks of the seawater infiltration during every spring tide.
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?
Due to extended timeframes, I believe dates are consistently overestimated through carbon dating. So overestimating the varve period would fit in with overestimated carbon dates. We need to find a better varve sequence to better calibrate carbon dating. Using a potentially inaccurate sequence is not the best way in which to calibrate carbon dating.
Other than the possibility of the varves being formed during spring tides, its also possible to relate them to rainfall patterns, wish of course would affect the sediment patterns in the lake, and could relate to intermittent flooding and not necessarily annual layering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 4:31 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 10-23-2013 11:25 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 123 of 224 (709259)
10-23-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:23 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
You still aren't making any effort to learn enough to be able to discuss the subject.
The Suigetsu varves are formed by a constant accumulation of dark sediment that is whitened by a bloom of diatoms in the spring, followed by a die-off when the food supply is nearly exhausted.
There's a reasonably non-technical explanation at Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology. Just another link for you to ignore.
In most varve situations, and I bet in Suigetsu as well, any significant salinity in the water stops varve formation by flocculating the clay sediment as it settles. And you have yet to come up with even a fantasy about how tides or anything could affect the varve formation when the varves were forming and Suigetsu was not connected to the sea. Tides don't move saltwater any significant distance through the water table, there's too much friction. Lake Suigetsu's closest approach to the sea is about 1 km, and there is no noticeable salt in the lake (see map and description at Mikata-goko lakes, another one for you to ignore).
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:23 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 124 of 224 (709260)
10-23-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:29 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.
Nope, not a chance. Consilience between varve counts and 14C dates and tree rings and Ar-Ar dating of tephra and U-Th dating of corals is not due to cherry-picking. Unless you can show evidence of such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 125 of 224 (709262)
10-23-2013 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:16 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
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.
Here are some links, mostly written by religious scholars. I have not checked these to make sure the links are still current, but if you google you can find them if they are not.
When you read these articles, try to do so with an open mind, not your current attitude that they have to be all wrong. You'll never learn anything otherwise.
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
Edited by Coyote, : Fix link

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 119 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:16 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 126 of 224 (709265)
10-23-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I explained this to Percy in post 102. Please feel free to reply to that post, the links explain the seawater tidal effects on the water table.
I looked at your links. They show tidal salinity effects only in areas within a couple of hundred yards or less from the sea. Not a kilometer from the sea as is Suigetsu. Plus Suigetsu is very still and stratified, and any salinity introduced at the edges would take a long time to diffuse to the center of the lake where the varves have been cored. Your claim doesn't cut the mustard.
Seawater is heavier than freshwater, the bottom layers of the diatom bloom would have experienced the greatest die-offs at the peaks of the seawater infiltration during every spring tide.
Ther diatoms bloom at the surface and settle after dying. If seawater intruded at the bottom of the lake it would have no effect.
I believe dates are consistently overestimated through carbon dating. So overestimating the varve period would fit in with overestimated carbon dates.
And the two independent overestimates would just happen to agree essentially perfectly? And just happen to agree with dendrochronology, and Ar-Ar dating of tephra, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms and Cariaco basin varves (see A high-resolution record of atmospheric 14C based on Hulu Cave speleothem H82 figures 5 and 6) and many others I'm not going to bother to dig up for you to ignore.
Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Other than the possibility of the varves being formed during spring tides, its also possible to relate them to rainfall patterns, wish of course would affect the sediment patterns in the lake, and could relate to intermittent flooding and not necessarily annual layering.
Consilience between multiple independent dating methods

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:56 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 127 of 224 (709277)
10-24-2013 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:29 AM


Comments to mindpawn and question for Coyote
mindspawn, you write:
mindspawn writes:
The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.
That's the wonderful thing about the scientific method. If you, mindspawn, think that samples are cherry-picked, you yourself can go and get samples. And get them dated. And publish your research in scientific journals. For everyone else to look at. And other researchers can try to show that you're wrong. By doing it themselves, too.
Just one little bit of warning: reading creationist websites won't give you any expertise in any of the dating methods. You will just repeat their stupidity and also do ridiculous things such as trying to carbon date fossilised material and diamonds. They might as well have put on their clown suits and stuck on their red noses before they even started their 'research'.
Coyote, I've started reading up on Lake Suigetsu. It's really interesting. Do you know if those annual layers are still being deposited? I couldn't find a source discussing that. From the photos and from things I read it seems as if it is possible. Do human activities (such as boat engins) have an influence on formation of such fragile sedimentary layers in that lake ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 10-24-2013 8:33 AM Pressie has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 128 of 224 (709288)
10-24-2013 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Pressie
10-24-2013 3:33 AM


Re: Comments to mindpawn and question for Coyote
Varves are no longer being produced in Suigetsu. In 1664 they built a canal connecting the freshwater (on top) lake Suigetsu to the brackish lake Hiruga (see Mikata-goko lakes) and that was the end of the show. IIRC there was also an earthquake which may have affected the varve formation.
So until recently the Suigetsu varve chronology was "floating"; it didn't contain within itself any known direct link to an independently dateable event. The chronology was anchored by connecting it to dendrochronology by way of 14C dating of both, and solidly anchored tree ring counts.
There's been some good progress in another independent anchor, Ar-Ar dating of tephras (from volcanic eruptions) found in the varves. It's a little tricky because they can't collect enough material from the varves to do the dating. But they can do geochemical analysis of the tephras in the varves and correlate that to tephra deposits found nearby which are extensive enough to do the Ar-Ar dating. There's only one result so far but it fits. See Tephra.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2013 3:33 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2013 11:43 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2013 8:45 PM JonF has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 129 of 224 (709318)
10-24-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:23 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
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?
What makes you so sure that tides would bring salt water into the lake and produce layers that exactly mimic annual varving in freshwater lakes? Moreover, how could such a process sort leaf and insect debris so that it exactly mimics the fluctuations in the 14C dendrochronology data and the ice layer data?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:23 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 130 of 224 (709329)
10-24-2013 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by JonF
10-24-2013 8:33 AM


Thanks
Thanks JohnF.
It is interesting. And from the photo's I've seen it is a must-visit area. One more place on my to do list. Beautiful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 10-24-2013 8:33 AM JonF has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2766 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 131 of 224 (709929)
10-31-2013 4:41 AM


Thanks for the discussion coyote, I have a lot more to say, especially about tree ring chronology but unfortunately this forum is not the place to do it because of admin's lack of moderation, even when I do complain. You are welcome to private message me if you would like to continue the discussion.
Here is a quote from admin after I lodged a complaint through the correct channels:
If you're not listening to my moderation and I'm not suspending you, then when others don't listen to my moderation how can I suspend them? Since so many are not listening to moderation my options are either to close the thread or just let things continue. I'm opting to keep the thread open.
This basically promotes a free for all which is to my complete disadvantage, a strongly moderated forum can keep the discussion civil, and prevent off-topic side issues, both which benefit all parties.

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 10-31-2013 9:58 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2013 10:08 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2013 9:10 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 224 (709951)
10-31-2013 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by mindspawn
10-31-2013 4:41 AM


I accept your capitulation
Since you are unable to defend them, you will now please stop making those outlandish claims about dating.
You had your chance here and you came up with nothing.

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 131 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2013 4:41 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 133 of 224 (709954)
10-31-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by mindspawn
10-31-2013 4:41 AM


This basically promotes a free for all which is to my complete disadvantage,
A free for all is towards everyones' disadvantage equally. You are no more hurt by it than anyone else.
prevent off-topic side issues
Everyone can prevent off-topic side issues by not replying to them.
but unfortunately this forum is not the place to do it because of admin's lack of moderation,
Yeah right. Its really because you're completely wrong and getting your ass handed to you because the people who post here are pretty smart and can back up their arguments with evidence.
But at least you found yourself a scapegoat. We wouldn't expect you to actually blame yourself. I'm just glad that your attempt at self-martyrdom didn't go as planned, 'cause that's no fun to watch.
Watching you try to writhe out of facing the errors of your arguments by blaming it on the administrator is pretty funny tho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2013 4:41 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 134 of 224 (710115)
11-01-2013 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by JonF
10-24-2013 8:33 AM


Re: Comments to mindpawn and question for Coyote
There's been some good progress in another independent anchor, Ar-Ar dating of tephras (from volcanic eruptions) found in the varves. It's a little tricky because they can't collect enough material from the varves to do the dating. But they can do geochemical analysis of the tephras in the varves and correlate that to tephra deposits found nearby which are extensive enough to do the Ar-Ar dating. There's only one result so far but it fits. See Tephra.
Good news, a footnote to add to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 message 5, another correlation between dating methods.
Also note message 21 of that thread:
quote:
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.
You can see the volcanic ash layers in the graph.
One of the interesting thing about volcanic ash is that it is not quite the same material in all volcanoes -- there is a "signature" of elements in the ash that differs from volcano to volcano, and this makes it easy to correlate layers in one place with those in another.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 10-24-2013 8:33 AM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 224 (710118)
11-01-2013 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 7:23 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
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?
Curiously that doesn't matter, because there could be several die-offs (greater than normal rate of dying) in the course of the year and the varves would still count annual layers.
The reason is that the alternate layer is clay, which settles very slowly, so slowly that it only accumulates into a visible layer when there are NO diatoms dying. The diatom tests (shells) settle quickly, but the clay layer settles slowly enough that it takes a full winter to form a layer.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 7:23 AM 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