[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14 Dating

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Pollen distribution in the light and dark phases rules that out.

Lol - how exactly do "light and dark phases" prove turbidity currents cannot be mistaken for varves?

The pollen distribution in each layer shows that they occured in different seasons. And, of course, we can observe them still being laid down, always one light and one dark layer per year.

Please be specific - you may be in over your head.

Looks like Zeke is.

 

[lordkalvan]

Why don't you first present evidence from science that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years. Or just admit the truth - you have no such evidence?

I have reasonably and politely offered to discuss a paper that provides a basis for understanding the evidential implications of varves, but you prefer to engage in rhetorical bombast instead. Do you want to discuss Mia Tiljander's paper or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[lordkalvan]

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did.

Do you offer proof that all varve-like deposits represent annual processes?

Clearly you did not understand the answer: there are no 'varve-like deposits' that are deposited more rapidly than seasonally that cannot be diagnostically distinguished from varves which are deposited seasonally. The diagnostic feature that enables this distinction is the seasonal variation.

You do understand the question or do you need help?

I think it is clear to everyone who is in need of help here.

Are you stumped or can you provide evidence from science that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years? Take your time.

Do you want to discuss the Tiljander paper and its evidential implications? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[zeke]

I have reasonably and politely offered to discuss a paper that provides a basis for understanding the evidential implications of varves, but you prefer to engage in rhetorical bombast instead. Do you want to discuss Mia Tiljander's paper or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Varve counting is only as reliable as the science that backs it up. I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have science that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[lordkalvan]

Varve counting is only as reliable as the science that backs it up. I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have science that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I take that as a no, then. For those who may be interested, however, as soon as time permits I will post a brief discussion highlighting the evidential implications of Mia Tiljander's research explaining how varves are understood and diagnostically identified.

 

[lordkalvan]

Introductory post on Mia Tiljander's paper

The study of Lake Korttajärvi in Central Finland was carried out by Mia Tiljander as her academic dissertation on the Holocene sedimentary history of that lake. The dissertation is available in full at the reference provided below.

Confidence in the conclusion that the laminae in Lake Korttajärvi represent varves was provided by a number of analyses, beginning with the nature of deposits that are being made presently:

The varve year begins when a light mineral lamina deposits in the spring. The mineral lamina becomes gradually mixed with organic matter in summer and autumn. At the end of the varve year (winter) black organic matter deposits under the ice cover.

Source: Mia Tiljander, Holocene sedimentary history of annual laminations of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland, Helsinki 2005. Full paper available at -

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/mat/geolo/vk/tiljander/holocene.pdf

The seasonal nature of the depositional pattern was verified by mineral- and palaeomagnetic measurements, including natural remanent magnetization, anhysteric remanent magnetization and isothermal remanent magnetization. These analyses were backed-up with stable isotope examination. The Korttajärvi varves were correlated with independent varve cores from Lakes Alimmainen Savijärvi and Nautajärvi, which supported conclusions about the chrononlogy represented by the Korttajärvi varves.

Study of the pattern of sedimentation showed strong correlations with known climatological variations from recent history and from more distant history as well, such that mineral- and organic-rich depositional periods could be identified alternating in intervals of from decades to centuries, correlations that matched similar evidence from other studies. Climate-dependent depositional patterns could be identified for the Medieval Warm period from 980-1250 AD, as well as for periods corresponding to 140-220 AD, 1688-1486 BC and 1846-1704 BC.

Severe climatic conditions were reflected in the sedimentation history for 3061-3037 BC, 1877-1848 BC and 907-875 BC. The latter dates coincide with an abrupt climate cooling that is known to have taken place at about that time in Western Europe. Increased mineral deposition was also noted for the periods 1580-1630 AD and 1650-1710 AD. Disturbances in sedimentation caused by increases in farming activity in the area in the early 18th century could also be identified. Chronologies were verified by carbon and hydrogen isotope studies.

So given this weight of evidence from Lake Korttajärvi varve sequences it is reasonable to conclude that varves are exactly what geologists understand them to be, seasonally deposited annually recurring lamina.

However, various factors can impact upon the count of varve sequences, such as depositional variations (changes in climate, increases in human activity in the locality, changes in the lake itself) and/or periods of disturbance in the varve-forming sequence caused by bioturbation or currents and/or counting errors inherent in the process itself, but these are variations understood and taken into account by geologists. This is why varve chronologies are quoted with error bars, for example the Lake Alimmainen Savijärvi varve record covers 10,295 +/-340 varve years, the Lake Nautajärvi record 9,898 +/-97 varve years, and the Lake Korttajärvi record 9,590 +/-103 varve years.

All data from Tiljander, op. cit.

This brief survey conclusively demonstrates that 'young Earth' chronologies that place the age of Earth at less than 7,000 years are seriously awry.

 

[zeke]

I take that as a no, then. For those who may be interested, however, as soon as time permits I will post a brief discussion highlighting the evidential implications of Mia Tiljander's research explaining how varves are understood and diagnostically identified.

Again, varve counting is only as reliable as the science behind it. Do you have scientific evidence that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[lordkalvan]

Again, varve counting is only as reliable as the science behind it. Do you have scientific evidence that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you have a specific point to make in respect of the arguments, evidence and conclusion in my introductory post on Lake Korttajärvi, I will be happy to discuss it, but it can scarcely have escaped your notice that Mia Tiljander's paper does not deal with 'millions of varves' that represent 'millions of years'. It does, however, deal with a varve sequence that is sufficient to cast serious doubt on YEC chronologies that try to suggest Earth is less than 7,000 years old, while also establishing beyond reasonable doubt that varves are seasonally deposited, annually recurring phenomena. It also deals with the science that underlies the identification of varves for what they are and shows that science to indeed be reliable.

So if you are aware of a case existing where millions of varves can be found, those millions of varves will represent millions of annually recurring seasonal deposits. Again, I will be happy to consider your arguments that counter this conclusion and the reliability of the science behind it, together with your account of the evidence that better explains it as parsimoniously and with as great a degree of consilience as does the one arising from Tiljander"s paper.

As it stands, however, I intend next to discuss the example of Lake Suigetsu, where varve sequences provide evidence of a history extending into the past some five times further than that of Lake Korttajärvi. This discussion will extend the points Barbarian has already made about this lake, points that you have also failed to address in any meaningful way.

 

[zeke]

As it stands, however, I intend next to discuss the example of Lake Suigetsu, where varve sequences provide evidence of a history extending into the past some five times further than that of Lake Korttajärvi.

Are you a varve expert? Do varve-like deposits exist that do not represent 'annual varves'? Do you have scientific evidence that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years or in the case of Lake Suigetsu, 45000 varves represents 45000 years? Is it possible in your version of geology that "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland were found to be up to five laminae deposited in a one year period?

Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160...

We do not intend to deny the capability of seasonal variations to produce annual layers. The intent is to show that many varve-like deposits do not represent annual processes. The following summarize why we must be cautious when evaluating laminar deposits:

1. Controversy exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the mechanism of their cyclic formation.
2. Lamination counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent.
3. There is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve and the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions.
4. There are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as storms, floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of dissimilar materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that varve-like laminations are a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.​

Varves: Problems for Standard Geochronology -Kurt Howard​

Is varve counting really error free? Are there problems with all dating methods including radioactive dating methods?

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted."

R. E. Lee - Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error”​

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you a varve expert?

No. Are you?

Do varve-like deposits exist that do not represent 'annual varves'?

Yes, but they're not varves which are diagnostically identified as seasonally deposited, annually recurring phenomena.

Do you have scientific evidence that proves the uniformitarian assumption that millions of varves represent millions of years or in the case of Lake Suigetsu, 45000 varves represents 45000 years?

You saw some of that evidence in Mia Tiljander's paper. Would you like to address it?

Is it possible in your version of geology that "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland were found to be up to five laminae deposited in a one year period?

Well let's look at your argument...

Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times.​

Can you reference the relevant study by Buchheim and Biaggi?

If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds.​

Why would this be the case? Can you show that invariably ‘the same number of layers should be present’ between two such beds? Remember those error bars and the variables I referred you to that can affect rhythmite counts?

Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568.​

And what did they conclude from their study? Do you know? I would simply point out that while varves are laminae, not all laminae are varves.

Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160...​

A touch of the old bait ‘n’ switch going on there, which leads me to doubt whether you should place as much value on Howard’s comments as you appear to. Varves represent couplets of rhythmites/lamina that are deposited seasonally in annually recurring cycles. Given the variables I referred to in the discussion of Mia Tiljander’s paper, therefore, 160 years of varves should be represented by around 320 lamina; in other words in the middle of the range mentioned above.

We do not intend to deny the capability of seasonal variations to produce annual layers. The intent is to show that many varve-like deposits do not represent annual processes.​

There seems to be a deliberate conflation of terms used here, presumably with the intent to obfuscate the issue rather than clarify it. Varves represent annual processes; what Howard calls ‘varve-like deposits’ are, diagnostically, not varves.

The following summarize why we must be cautious when evaluating laminar deposits:

1. Controversy exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the mechanism of their cyclic formation. .​

Hmm, now Howard is talking about laminar deposits and the caution necessary when analysing what they represent. Well, that’s why geologists take the trouble they do (as demonstrated by Mia Tiljander’s paper) to determine that what they are looking at are varves and not some other form of lamina. As Howard has not demonstrated the controversy he refers to to any degree, this point can reasonably be discounted.

2. Lamination counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent.​

Again, Howard has not demonstrated this to any extent with any degree of reliability.

3. There is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve and the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions.​

Howard has referred to two examples, one of which relies on a bait ‘n’ switch to make a dubious point, so his assertion about ‘frequent uncertainty’ is not supported by his examples.

4. There are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as storms, floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of dissimilar materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that varve-like laminations are a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.​

Howard does not seem to grasp the crucial distinction that not all laminae are varves and that different depositional circumstances produce different types of lamina. Non-seasonal mechanisms do not produce varves, which are diagnostically seasonal.

Varves: Problems for Standard Geochronology -Kurt Howard​

Is Howard a varve expert? From the above, it appears not. So if not, why do you rate his opinion? Also, can you tell me where you sourced this reference so I can read the full context?

Is varve counting really error free? Are there problems with all dating methods including radioactive dating methods?

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted."

R. E. Lee - Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error”​

Can you provide the reference that you sourced this from? Do you know what Lee was referring to (was it a specific analysis, for example) and on what data he based the apparent conclusion he comes to? What lies in the ellipses, for instance? Regardless of this, however, your quotation does nothing to invalidate anything in Mia Tiljander’s paper.​

 

[zeke]

Yes, but they're not varves which are diagnostically identified as seasonally deposited, annually recurring phenomena.

You didn't answer my questions - is varve counting really error free? Are there problems with all dating methods including radioactive dating methods? Was Howard correct when he wrote many varve-like deposits do not represent annual processes?

I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[lordkalvan]

You didn't answer my questions - is varve counting really error free? Are there problems with all dating methods including radioactive dating methods? Was Howard correct when he wrote many varve-like deposits do not represent annual processes?

I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I did answer your questions, but either you failed to understand the answers or you didn't like them. If you want to complain about questions not being answered, you could maybe try replying to those I raised in the post you are replying to, as well as the other points raised therein. I also notice you have still failed in any substantive way to address the points discussed in Mia Tiljander's paper.

Lake Suigetsu next.

 

[zeke]

I did answer your questions, but either you failed to understand the answers or you didn't like them.

I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[lordkalvan]

I ask again - reasonably and politely - do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I am not going to bat this backwards and forwards with you. Refer to my previous posts and act as you demand others do so.

 

[zeke]

I am not going to bat this backwards and forwards with you.

But you have never answered the question - do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. Your day-time job is not varve counting - right?

 

[Barbarian]

Are you a varve expert? Do varve-like deposits exist that do not represent 'annual varves'?

It's not hard to check. For the ones used to calibrate C-14, the pollen content of the varves demonstrates annual processes.

Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick.

The Green River Formation are lamina, not varves. They lied to you.
http://rmg.geoscienceworld.org/content/30/1/3.citation

 

[Barbarian]

I think Zeke is trying desperately to find a loophole. But there isn't one. In the lakes that were used to calibrate C-14, the varves are still forming, two per year.

That's how it works. Notice that the creationists who pump these guys up feel the need to conflate varves and laminae in order to make their point.

That's an important clue in itself.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think Zeke is trying desperately to find a loophole. But there isn't one. In the lakes that were used to calibrate C-14, the varves are still forming, two per year.

That's how it works. Notice that the creationists who pump these guys up feel the need to conflate varves and laminae in order to make their point.

That's an important clue in itself.

Yes, and despite being asked to cite the source for his Howard and Lee references, he has declined to do so. Makes you wonder.

 

[zeke]

That's how it works. Notice that the creationists who pump these guys up feel the need to conflate varves and laminae in order to make their point.

The facts speak for themselves my friend - see the results of Buchheim and Biaggi's work below. Can we understand that you are not a varve counter by profession? No need to answer.

Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year.​

 

[lordkalvan]

The facts speak for themselves my friend - see the results of Buchheim and Biaggi's work below. Can we understand that you are not a varve counter by profession? No need to answer.

Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year.​

You have quoted this before, failed to link to your source and failed to respond to any of the points raised relating to it, so why are you quoting it again as if it amounts to some sort of irrefutably authorititative statement all by itself?