[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14 Dating

[zeke]

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?

I posted my source and you certainly can't dispute Buchheim and Biaggi's findings. Do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact or are you still scratching your head?

 

[lordkalvan]

I posted my source and you certainly can't dispute Buchheim and Biaggi's findings.

I asked for a link, that is from where you sourced the quotation which mentioned Buchheim and Biaggi. You failed to provide such information, and likewise for the R.E. Lee reference. I have commented on both quotations and asked questions arising from them; you have responded to none of this.

Do you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact or are you still scratching your head?

I suggest you desist flamebaiting and try engaging positively with the discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

The fact remains. The Green River Lamina are not varves, nor do geologists claim that they are.

Again, if creationists depend on deception to make a point, isn't that an indication of the worth of their ideas?

 

[zeke]

The fact remains. The Green River Lamina are not varves, nor do geologists claim that they are.

You are dancing - the facts are what they are. "Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year."

 

[zeke]

I suggest you desist flamebaiting and try engaging positively with the discussion.

And I asked you politely if you have scientific evidence that proves uniformitarian dogma is based on scientific fact. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Hi Barbarian,

I understand the methodology and the reasoning. The same reasoning is used to date trees where one ring represents one year. However, there are instances where a tree can create multiple rings in one year depending on disease, climate etc.

I would have you keep in mind how Willard Libby was so secure in his belief that once something died, the carbon 14 clock started clicking... and as you've stated earlier, Willard Libby has been proved wrong with that assumption according to our earlier conversation in regard to finding Carbon 14 in diamonds.

I would suggest that while the varve data may appear to support ages beyond 7,000 years, it's based on the assumption that each layer represents a year. This assumption, as with Mr. Libby's assumption may be shown to be wrong by scientific means at a later date.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are dancing - the facts are what they are. "Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year."

Do you pay no attention at all to the replies that are given? Go read my response to your post where you first presented this argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi Barbarian,

I understand the methodology and the reasoning. The same reasoning is used to date trees where one ring represents one year. However, there are instances where a tree can create multiple rings in one year depending on disease, climate etc.

I would have you keep in mind how Willard Libby was so secure in his belief that once something died, the carbon 14 clock started clicking... and as you've stated earlier, Willard Libby has been proved wrong with that assumption according to our earlier conversation in regard to finding Carbon 14 in diamonds.

I would suggest that while the varve data may appear to support ages beyond 7,000 years, it's based on the assumption that each layer represents a year. This assumption, as with Mr. Libby's assumption may be shown to be wrong by scientific means at a later date.

Hi, SB. Can I refer you back to my post where I briefly discussed Mia Tiljander's paper on varves? If you read the paper in full, you will note the painstaking effort put into identifying varves for what they are, cross-dating them by independent dating methodologies and checking the data against known changes in climate, etc. In the light of this work, what leads you to suppose that the conclusion that varve couplets represesent seasonal deposition recurring annually and that this deposition can be traced back almost 10,000 years might be wrong?

 

[stovebolts]

Hi, SB. Can I refer you back to my post where I briefly discussed Mia Tiljander's paper on varves? If you read the paper in full, you will note the painstaking effort put into identifying varves for what they are, cross-dating them by independent dating methodologies and checking the data against known changes in climate, etc. In the light of this work, what leads you to suppose that the conclusion that varve couplets represesent seasonal deposition recurring annually and that this deposition can be traced back almost 10,000 years might be wrong?

Hi LK,
I'm not really interested in reading all of the exchanges between you and Zeke over the previous pages. Do you want to repost?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The fact remains. The Green River Lamina are not varves, nor do geologists claim that they are.

You are dancing

I'm pointing out a fact. These are not varves. And geologists don't claim the are.

the facts are what they are. "Lambert and Hsü (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year."

Which, as you learned, are not varves. How do you think they knew that they were all in the same year? Think.

The reason we know varves are what they are, is that when they are analyzed, we find pollen in the layers of the correct season. Oh, and direct observation shows them to form two per year.

Sometimes, it's diatoms forming the counter-layer. Again, since they only bloom and then die off in the warmer months, there's no mistaking their annual character.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi LK,
I'm not really interested in reading all of the exchanges between you and Zeke over the previous pages. Do you want to repost?

Hi SB, I don't want to clutter the thread with unnecessary duplication. It's on page 5, post 66. The link to Mia Tiljander's paper is there and here:

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

 

[zeke]

Which, as you learned, are not varves. How do you think they knew that they were all in the same year?

In your armchair version of varve-counting are you saying that laminae can never be varves and it is impossible for more than more than one varve to form in a single year? How do you tell the diffidence between pseudo-varves and varves? Lambert and Hsü found five laminae deposited in a one year period – how do you explain that?

...researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...

...The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...

Do Millions of Laminae in the Green River Shales Document Millions of Years? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.​

 

[Barbarian]

In your armchair version of varve-counting

I've actually been to some of these places, and seen for myself.

are you saying that laminae can never be varves

I've pointed out that not all laminae are varves. The Green River formation, is an example of laminae that are not varves. Your creationist masters have correctly guessed you would not know that.

and it is impossible for more than more than one varve to form in a single year?

We can still watch them form. Unless there was more than one summer and one winter in a single year, it won't happen.

How do you tell the diffidence between pseudo-varves and varves?

I showed you how. Pollen or diatom composition of the alternating layers.

Lambert and Hsü found five laminae deposited in a one year period – how do you explain that?

As you learned, not all laminae are varves.

..researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...

But no source for that? Not surprising.

...The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes.

Show us that. Checkable source. Not for the opinion, for the fact.

Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...

And here, a bald assertion about what "all" researchers recognize, along with another attempt to conflate varves with all laminae.

Do Millions of Laminae in the Green River Shales Document Millions of Years? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Morris. The same Morris who blathers about the Bible saying that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior.

That one.

 

[zeke]

I've actually been to some of these places, and seen for myself.

LOL - did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express?

I've pointed out that not all laminae are varves.

You didn't answer the question - it is impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year?

Morris. The same Morris who blathers about the Bible saying that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior.

That one.

Typical for you...

Ad Hominem Fallacy: general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant and unproven assertion about the person presenting the claim or argument - typically committed by Barbarians.​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I've pointed out that not all laminae are varves.

You didn't answer the question - it is impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year?

Don't know of any. How could you have two summers in a single year? I'd be open to your evidence showing that, of course.

Barbarian regarding the moral status of Henry Morris, who pretended the Green River Laminae were varves:
Morris. The same Morris who blathers about the Bible saying that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior.

Ad Hominem Fallacy: general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant and unproven assertion about the person presenting the claim or argument

It's a matter of record. It's in Morris's "The Beginning of the World." And it goes to his credibility. He's either nuts or dishonest. I'm just laying it out without any equivocation.

typically committed by Barbarians.

Blunt is our way.

 

[lordkalvan]

I asked for a link, that is from where you sourced the quotation which mentioned Buchheim and Biaggi. You failed to provide such information, and likewise for the R.E. Lee reference. I have commented on both quotations and asked questions arising from them; you have responded to none of this.

Zeke?

 

[zeke]

Zeke?

Kalvan?

I cited my source for the Buchheim and Biaggi data and Lee's words speak for themselves. What is it you misunderstand? Can you help Barbarian - he is still scratching his head for the obvious reasons. In your varve-counting hobby is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year or do you need to confer with Mia?

For the record - when are you going to present your Mia Tiljander-Part 2 lecture or have you lost interest?

 

[Barbarian]

So you don't know of any case of 2 or more varves in a year? That would be something to see.

 

[zeke]

So you don't know of any case of 2 or more varves in a year? That would be something to see.

You still haven't answered the question - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year? Take your time.

 

[lordkalvan]

Kalvan?

I cited my source for the Buchheim and Biaggi data and Lee's words speak for themselves. What is it you misunderstand?

I understand that you are unable to answer questions asked and answer points raised relevant to your posts. That is obvious.

Can you help Barbarian - he is still scratching his head for the obvious reasons. In your varve-countin.g hobby is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year or do you need to confer with Mia?

Barbarian is quite effectively demonstrating your inability to provide any reasoned response to his arguments.

For the record - when are you going to present your Mia Tiljander-Part 2 lecture or have you lost interest?

As you have failed to respond in any meaningful fashion to points arising from my post on the Tiljander paper, maybe you should put your sarcasm in store until you have made some attempt to engage positively with those points.