[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14 Dating

[zeke]

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.

I am not too interested in Tiljander's paper but present part two and let's see what you have. I am much more interested in your evidence (if you have any) that demonstrates via the scientific method that the assumptions made under Uniformitarianism are scientifically correct. We have noted that you have thus far not attempted to answer that question. Are you afraid of the answer?

The fact remains - all 'dating' techniques are subject to error. I think Frederick Jueneman made a valid point when he wrote it is possible that "atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

Frederic B. Jueneman (evolutionist), “Secular Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development​

I will be traveling on assignment and will not be posting until my return in early June. Maybe you can come up with a good answer by then and we can discuss further. Best of luck if you decide to present your *Mia Tiljander-Part 2* - I hope it goes over better than part 1.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am not too interested in Tiljander's paper but present part two and let's see what you have.

Would that be because you have no meaningful response to make? And if you're 'not too interested' in what i have posted already, perhaps you can offer me a reason why i should attempt to engage your lack of interestand inability to respond to it a second time.

I am much more interested in your evidence (if you have any) that demonstrates via the scientific method that the assumptions made under Uniformitarianism are scientifically correct. We have noted that you have thus far not attempted to answer that question. Are you afraid of the answer?

Perhaps you should refer to my post where I pointed out that your ideas about uniformitarianism seemed to be poorly informed. You might also note that all the data in Tiljander's paper directly refutes the idea of an Earth less than 7000 years' old. Maybe you should address that before you start fretting about your misunderstandings about modern geology's understanding of Earth processes?

The fact remains - all 'dating' techniques are subject to error.

Yes, which is why they are usually published in the scientific literature with error bars. If you were interested, you may have noticed them in Tiljander's paper.

I think Frederick Jueneman made a valid point when he wrote it is possible that "atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

Frederic B. Jueneman (evolutionist), “Secular Catastrophism,†Industrial Research and Development​

Who is Frederick Juenemann, why should we rate his opinion, what evidence supports that opinion and where did you source this quotation?

I will be traveling on assignment and will not be posting until my return in early June. Maybe you can come up with a good answer by then and we can discuss further. Best of luck if you decide to present your *Mia Tiljander-Part 2* - I hope it goes over better than part 1.

When you answer questions yourself you may be entitled to comment on whether others should or have made good ones yourself. As far as the Tiljander paper is concerned, as your complete failure to offer any relevant comment at all on something you are 'not too interested in' anyway demonstrates, on what grounds you offer the judgement about whether a second post would go 'over better' than the first one rather mystifies me.

 

[zeke]

As far as the Tiljander paper is concerned, as your complete failure to offer any relevant comment at all on something you are 'not too interested in' anyway demonstrates, on what grounds you offer the judgement about whether a second post would go 'over better' than the first one rather mystifies me.

As noted - I am not that interested in the paper and I am not convinced you have the varve-counting expertise to explain your cut and past job. You have already admitted you don't count varves as a day job. As far as your Tiljander 2 presentation, it was you who was tooting your own horn about a sequel and we were just wondering when that would take place. I thought maybe you had lost interest. Have you?

You still haven't answered my question about the assumptions made under uniformitarian dogma. Is it based on good science? Maybe it is but you have yet to demonstrate that to us - which causes doubt as to your understanding of the processes involved in geological dating. You appear to be somewhat confused.

I also didn't see your answer to my earlier question - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year - in your mind?

"All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...(Morris)​

 

[lordkalvan]

As noted - I am not that interested in the paper and I am not convinced you have the varve-counting expertise to explain your cut and past job.

Cut and paste job? What are you talking about? And what expertise do you lay claim to that doesn't amount to trawling creationist websites for out-of-context quotes and demonstrably misleading or misunderstood assertions, just out of interest?

You have already admitted you don't count varves as a day job.

And this is important to you why, exactly? And we're still waiting to learn the extent of your expertise in the field. What is your background, just out of interest, as you seem to think it so important with regard to the arguments and opinions of others?

As far as your Tiljander 2 presentation, it was you who was tooting your own horn about a sequel and we were just wondering when that would take place. I thought maybe you had lost interest. Have you?

As the first post on this subject seems so far to have been little more than an exercise in casting pearls before swine, I still await some meaningful comment from you on the evidence presented therein. All you seem to have been able to offer so far is sarcasm, flamebaiting and irrelevant quotes from unspecified sources.

You still haven't answered my question about the assumptions made under uniformitarian dogma. Is it based on good science? Maybe it is but you have yet to demonstrate that to us - which causes doubt as to your understanding of the processes involved in geological dating. You appear to be somewhat confused.

And you still seem to have reading for comprehension problems.

I also didn't see your answer to my earlier question - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year - in your mind?

"All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...(Morris)​

Please provide the relevant reference, link and evidence for this alleged claim by whoever Morris is as to what 'all' researchers supposedly 'now recognise'. Given your track-record when requested to do so, however, I don't expect you to do anything other than ignore this request.

ETA And as per your common practice, you have failed to respond to the substance of the post you are supposedly replying to, ignoring all questions asked and points raised, even the one you are 'answering'. Can you answer the questions about your Frederick Juenemann reference, for example, or is this something you prefer to keep secret?

 

[Barbarian]

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

Frederic B. Jueneman (evolutionist), “Secular Catastrophism,†Industrial Research and Development

Jueneman is also a composer and author, having written two symphonic suites and several ensemble and piano works, as well as two published books on speculative science: Limits of Uncertainty (1975) and Raptures of the Deep (1995). He has also contributed articles to Aeon, Kronos, SIS Review, and the Oct. 1974 Analog Science Fiction and Fact "Special Velikovsky Issue". Jueneman is a widower, has three children, one each grandchildren, and one each great grandchildren, with another on the way.

http://www.velikovsky.info/Fred_Jueneman

Wow, a musician and a science fiction writer. Oh, and a writer in "speculative science." Nothing about being an "evolutionist", though.

Given your history here, how about showing us the evidence that nuclear decay rates used by scientists to date the age of the Earth, can be changed sufficiently to make billions of years untenable? And give us a checkable source showing something Jueneman wrote that indicated he accepted evolution.

This would be a major point for YE creationism, if you can do it. On the other hand, if it's just another made up story...

 

[Barbarian]

So you can't answer my request for evidence of more than one varve per year?

Isn't that an important clue for you, right there?

 

[zeke]

And this is important to you why, exactly?

Just pointing out that you presented Tiljander 1 and then fizzled out on your promise of Tiljander 2. I still haven't seen your answer regarding varves - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year or do you not know the answer? What does Tiljander's work show regarding that question or do you not know that either?

And we're still waiting to learn the extent of your expertise in the field. What is your background, just out of interest, as you seem to think it so important with regard to the arguments and opinions of others?

I am a seeker of scientific facts and I find evolutionism lacking scientific facts. I think Berlinski's evaluation of the theory of evolution accurate...

"The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ David Berlinski​

 

[zeke]

So you can't answer my request for evidence of more than one varve per year?

I still haven't seen your answer regarding varves - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year or do you not know the answer? What does your Magisterium advise you to say?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
So you can't answer my request for evidence of more than one varve per year?

I still haven't seen your answer regarding varves

You've seen it twice. I have no idea how more than one varve could form, since that would call for more than one summer in a year.

Since you've repeatedly declined to show us such evidence, we'll conclude you just made it up.

 

[zeke]

I have no idea how more than one varve could form, since that would call for more than one summer in a year.

You still didn't answer the question - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year? That would simply require a yes or no.

"All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...(Morris)​

I am off to catch a redeye flight--work on the answer, think about what Morris is saying and we can discuss further in about two weeks. You're doing great.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian answers the question for a third time:
I have no idea how more than one varve could form, since that would call for more than one summer in a year.

You still didn't answer the question

You don't get to choose the answer you get. Now, how about answering mine. Do you have any checkable evidence that varves form more than once a year?

"All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year...(Morris)

Sorry, Morris isn't a geologist; he was the director of the Institute for Creation Research, who argued that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. And (of course) he's wrong about the opinion of people who study varves.

Certain shales of Miocene age in Switzerland bring that ancient world as vividly to life as any poster advertising the glories of a Swiss canton. For layer upon layer repeat the following sequence: compressed in the bottom of each layer are the blossoms of poplar and camphor trees, symbols of spring; immediately above is a thin region containing winged ants and the seeds of elm and poplar, all of summertime; and this in turn is overlaid by the autumn fruits of camphor, date-plum and wild grape. The whole progression of the seasons, year after year, are there in the earth like an enchantment. Time past was as real as time present.
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/12/rocks-of-age-how-varves-show-earth-old.html

A varve is simply defined as: an annual sediment layer. Where we see varves today, mostly in lake (lacustrine) deposits, but also in some marine environments, there are seasonal or annual variations in deposition responsible for contrasting layers within one year. Unlike many other environments, preservation and recognition of annual structures in glacial lakes is nearly guaranteed because the activity of organisms (burrowing) is generally very low and does not significantly disturb layers after they form. Thus, varves formed in glacial lakes, or glacial varves, are distinctive features of glacial lacustrine environments. It should be noted that in many places, especially on the internet, varves are frequently defined as a type of glacial lake sediment. This definition stems from the fact that varves are common in glacial lake environments, but this definition overlooks the most important aspect of all varves. Varves are defined as annual sediment layers and they can occur in many different environments.
http://geology.tufts.edu/varves/Geology/varves.asp

Varves are annual sediment layers formed in lakes in certain environments. According to Davidson and Wolgemuth "In northern latitudes where lakes freeze over, fine grained particles will settle out in winter, followed by coarser-grained material in spring as ice thaws and increased stream flow carries larger particles into the lake."

In other places, varves are produced by annual diatom blooms. "At all times of the year, fine particulate material settles out on the bottom, but during the spring, single-celled organisms with a solid shell rapidly reproduce near the surface of the lake. As they die, the shells rain out onto the lake floor and form a light-colored coating. Each winter-spring cycle produces a dark-light colored sediment couplet, or varve."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/varve.html

Varved sediments of the tropical Cariaco Basin provide a new (super 14) C calibration data set for the period of deglaciation (10,000 to 14,500 years before present: 10-14.5 cal ka BP). Independent evaluations of the Cariaco Basin calendar and (super 14) C chronologies were based on the agreement of varve ages with the GISP2 ice core layer chronology for similar high-resolution paleoclimate records, in addition to (super 14) C age agreement with terrestrial (super 14) C dates, even during large climatic changes. These assessments indicate that the Cariaco Basin (super 14) C reservoir age remained stable throughout the Younger Dryas and late Allerod climatic events and that the varve and (super 14) C chronologies provide an accurate alternative to existing calibrations based on coral U/Th dates. The Cariaco Basin calibration generally agrees with coral-derived calibrations but is more continuous and resolves century-scale details of (super 14) C change not seen in the coral records.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/2035

Varve-like sedimentation can rather easily be detected by the methods mentioned previously:

Non-annual cycles of varve-like sedimentation in Walensee, Switzerland
Sedimentology
Volume 26, Issue 3, pages 453–461, June 1979

I am off to catch a redeye flight--work on the answer, think about what Morris is saying and we can discuss further in about two weeks.

That should give you plenty of time to verify that several varves form per year. When you come back, be sure to tell us about it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Just pointing out that you presented Tiljander 1 and then fizzled out on your promise of Tiljander 2. I still haven't seen your answer regarding varves - is it impossible for more than one varve to form in a single year or do you not know the answer? What does Tiljander's work show regarding that question or do you not know that either?

When you show the courtesy of replying to questions asked and responding appropriately to posts relevant to the issue at hand you may have some grounds for complaining about others not answering your questions. Until then, it would be more appropriate for you to focus on the beam in the eye of your own omissions than pointing to the mote in others'.

I am a seeker of scientific facts and I find evolutionism lacking scientific facts. I think Berlinski's evaluation of the theory of evolution accurate...

"The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ David Berlinski​

The irony in your first sentence is wholly unintended, I am sure. Who is Berlinski, why should we value his opinion and where did you source this quotation? For someone who complains about others' alleged reliance on cut and pastes, a mighty proportion of your own arguments seem to rely on exactly such material that, when asked to link to or verify, you simply ignore such requests.