[_ Old Earth _] Revised Carbon 14 testing

[jwu]

In light of The First Law, how do you account for all the carbon removed the cycle. What replaces the carbon that was in the cycle, but now is
trapped under 1000's of feet of soil, and removed from the cycle (carbon
sink). There had to of been a huge C12 drop in the cycle when these strata
were deposited. Same applies for limestone (calcium carbonate).

What first law? Of thermodynamics?
The carbon did not get replaced.

And that's actually quite a problem for catastrophism. The earth couldn't possibly have held all the bio mass that now constitutes the coal and oil deposits which according to the flood model all were formed by the flood at once. There is much more coal and oil than there is alive bio mass today - according to the flood model all that stuff should have been alive right before the flood, which is pretty much impossible.
The earth contains enough oil to cover the entire surface in about 68cm of it. And a cubic metre of wood won't give you a cubic metre of oil...you need more wood than that, much more.

And what does that have to do with the ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere anyway?

Limestone forms either by direct crystallization from water (usually seawater)

or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments. In the first case, it carries

a record of the chemical composition of seawater and it provides evidence of

how that composition has changed with time. Limestone usually forms in

shallow water less than 20 m (70 ft) deep and thus also provides important

geological information on the variation in sea level in the past.

All limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate from water.

Calcium carbonate leaves solutions in many ways and each way produces a

different kind of limestone. All the different ways can be classified into two

major groups: either with or without the aid of a living organism.

You're contradicting yourself there.

However, in case of the dover cliffs it's limestone which was formed from shell fragments of small organisms. That takes time. Lots of time. The other method wouldn't be able to account for it in the required timeframe either though (not that it matters in any way, as the composition is perfectly clear, it's shell limestone).

The researchers were aware of this possibility, so the first set of samples
consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal
Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten
samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record,
three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. Are you saying
all three strata were surrounded by these very close levels of radioactivity
even though their separated by hundreds and thousands of meters? The
correlations are remarkably tight.

Wait a second...they were taken from the "sample bank" of some university, i.e. not gathered in the expectation of being tested for C14 and accordingly stored in an inert gas? I.e. they were exposed to air? Bummer... they were contaminated with C14 from the air (which is very significant for samples with this little C14), and similar time of exposure of course accounts for similar amounts of C14.

And don't you find it interesting that they contained only 0.2% of the natural amount of C14? There should be about 50% in it if they had formed less than 5000 years ago.

And the Permian Strata? These are marine organisms.


Also, the majority of the plants in the Pennsylvanian strata are tropical.

Plate tectonics. climate changes.

And
how do you explain: the inclusion of numerous marine fossils such as fish,
molluscs, brachiopods, tubeworms, upright tree trunks which often
penetrate tens of feet perpendicular to stratification....
The Pennsylvanian strata as a whole reflects catastrophism versus
uniformity.

No one denies local catastrophes, and a frequent change from land being dry and covered by water of seas or even oceans is part of the standard model, it's fully explained.
However, upright trees are an interesting issue. sSometimes they are found with roots intact and firmly embedded into the underlying soil, which means that they grew in the place where they were found.
We should not find any such fossils in the strata which supposedly were laid down by the flood - but we do.
And besides...what were the animals which dug these burrows thinking?

Huge image:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/Jr_Morrison_vert-1.jpg
They are in jurassic strata - including the exits.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm

Evidence of an old world that stands up to scrutiny and an Old World
geologic model that makes more sense than The Flood model. Sorry, the
first time you asked, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

I think that's the case right now.

However, independent from positive evidence for an old earth, what negative evidence could falsify a flood or a young earth? Is there something specific that could be found that you would accept as a falsification of the flood, just as e.g. bunny bones in undisturbed precambrian strata would falsify evolution?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:In light of The First Law, how do you account for all the carbon removed the cycle. What replaces the carbon that was in the cycle, but now is trapped under 1000's of feet of soil, and removed from the cycle (carbon sink). There had to of been a huge C12 drop in the cycle when these strata were deposited. Same applies for limestone (calcium carbonate).

jwu:
What first law? Of thermodynamics? The carbon did not get replaced. And that's actually quite a problem for catastrophism. The earth couldn't possibly have held all the biomass that now constitutes the coal and oil deposits which according to the flood model all were formed by the flood at once. There is much more coal and oil than there is alive bio mass today - according to the flood model all that stuff should have been alive right before the flood, which is pretty much impossible. The earth contains enough oil to cover the entire surface in about 68cm of it. And a cubic metre of wood won't give you a cubic metre of oil...you need more wood than that, much more. And what does that have to do with the ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere anyway?

However, the carbon did get removed from the cycle. Much of it continues to be removed (coal and oil deposits) . I f your contention is that these strata did not change the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio, then where did the additional carbon come from to maintain the ratio at it’s previous value?Could you elaborate on your uniformitarian assumption that “pre-flood†biomass levels were the same as today?

charlie:Limestone forms either by direct crystallization from water (usually seawater) or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments. In the first case, it carries a record of the chemical composition of seawater and it provides evidence of how that composition has changed with time. Limestone usually forms in shallow water less than 20 m (70 ft) deep and thus also provides important geological information on the variation in sea level in the past. All limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate from water. Calcium carbonate leaves solutions in many ways and each way produces a different kind of limestone. All the different ways can be classified into two major groups: either with or without the aid of a living organism.

jwu:You're contradicting yourself there. However, in case of the dover cliffs it's limestone which was formed from shell fragments of small organisms. That takes time. Lots of time. The other method wouldn't be able to account for it in the required timeframe either though (not that it matters in any way, as the composition is perfectly clear, it's shell limestone).

Contradiction? I was simply explaining two different broad categories of limestone diagenesis. All limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate from water. One category precipitates directly, the other indirectly.What makes you think it takes a lot of time to create limestone? Why would there be plentiful, well preserved fossils in these formations if millions of years were involved in their diagenesis. To become fossilized, a plant or animal must be buried quickly. This negates the possibility of large amounts of time in limestone diagenesis.

charlie:The researchers were aware of this possibility, so the first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. Are you saying all three strata were surrounded by these very close levels of radioactivity even though their separated by hundreds and thousands of meters? The correlations are remarkably tight.

jwu:Wait a second...they were taken from the "sample bank" of some university, i.e. not gathered in the expectation of being tested for C14 and accordingly stored in an inert gas? I.e. they were exposed to air? Bummer... they were contaminated with C14 from the air (which is very significant for samples with this little C14), and similar time of exposure of course accounts for similar amounts of C14. And don't you find it interesting that they contained only 0.2% of the natural amount of C14? There should be about 50% in it if they had formed less than 5000 years ago.

I’ve quoted the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank’s collection procedures below, which includes storing the samples in argon gas in sealed containers.The amounts of C14 indicated are 200-260 times the lower threshold of AMS dating standards: hardly a small sample. Bones are routinely retroactively dated with the AMS method to obtain more “precise datesâ€Â.The graph shows pmc, .i..e.- C12. The dates presented translate to approximately 30,000 rcybp.If a worldwide flood did occur, one would expect an exponential curve, decreasing at an increasing rate as the “date†of the flood is approached.

Sample Collection and ProcessingDECS series samples were collected in 180 kg (400 lb.) quantities from recently exposed areas of active mines, where they were placed in 113 L (30 gal.) steel drums with high-density gaskets and purged with argon. These are the newest and best preserved samples in the collection, and should be chosen when possible for research requiring moderate quantities of sample. Older PSOC samples were collected similarly, but placed in polyethylene 113 L or 19 L (5 gal.) containers. As soon as feasible after collection, the samples were processed to obtain representative lots of approximately 300g (2/3 lb.) of minus 0.85 mm (20 mesh) coal. DECS samples were sealed under argon in foil multilaminate bags, which have been shown to preserve samples well, and are kept in refrigerated storage (3¯C). PSOC samples were sealed under argon in polyethylene bags which were then sealed in no. 2 size steel cans. The 300g containers are the ones most often requested by research agencies. Other stock sizes include 2.3 kg (5 lb.) lots of minus 6.4 mm (-1/4 inch) coal and 75g (3 oz.) of minus 0.25 mm ( -60 mesh) coal. Some non-representative blocks of coal, sealed in argon and refrigerated, are also available for certain coals in the Sample Bank. http://www.energy.psu.edu/copl/doesb.html

charlie:And the Permian Strata? These are marine organisms. Also, the majority of the plants in the Pennsylvanian strata are tropical.

jwu: Plate tectonics. climate changes.

Worldwide?

charlie: And how do you explain: the inclusion of numerous marine fossils such as fish, molluscs, brachiopods, tubeworms, upright tree trunks which often penetrate tens of feet perpendicular to stratification.... The Pennsylvanian strata as a whole reflects catastrophism versus uniformity.

jwu:No one denies local catastrophes, and a frequent change from land being dry and covered by water of seas or even oceans is part of the standard model, it's fully explained. However, upright trees are an interesting issue. Sometimes they are found with roots intact and firmly embedded into the underlying soil, which means that they grew in the place where they were found. We should not find any such fossils in the strata which supposedly were laid down by the flood - but we do.

I can’t really give you an opinion concerning the “burrowsâ€Â...I would need to see more geological context.I interpret the upright trees as being covered with sediment rapidly, and then fossilized in place. Interpreting the trees as growing through rock, coal, and other strata from deep underground makes less sense to me.

charlie:Evidence of an old world that stands up to scrutiny and an Old World geologic model that makes more sense than The Flood model. Sorry, the first time you asked, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

I think that's the case right now. However, independent from positive evidence for an old earth, what negative evidence could falsify a flood or a young earth? Is there something specific that could be found that you would accept as a falsification of the flood, just as e.g. bunny bones in undisturbed precambrian strata would falsify evolution?

Very good questions. This is what ID and YE advocates need to continue to solidify, if these hypotheses are to be accepted as theories in the “Mainstream Scientific Communityâ€Â.Here’s a few I propose (and I’m sure ya’ll will tear me up on this, but these proposed falsifications need criticism to acertain the validity...just bear with me...these are very, very tentative, but I have to start somewhere):

1. All created animals and plants should be present in all sedimentary strata (except those that became extinct before the “floodâ€Â). Continued fossil collection over time should reveal all species in these sedimentary strata (or at least the majority). If not, this would be a falsification of the model.

2. Lack of fossils in the sedimentary strata.

3. Lack of huge layers of sedimentary strata. If it could demonstrated convincingly that Cambrian thorugh Cretaceous strata are not sedimentary, that would be a falsification. These “sedimentary†strata make up 88.5% of the geologic column

4. Lack of massive amounts of organic material, covered by higher strata.

5. An inabilty to distinguish where one species “stops†and another “ begins†in the fossil record. As fossils continue to be collected over time, there should become a “blur†between species to falsify the flood model.

6. An inability to C14 date the majority of fossils and other organic depositions in these sedimentary strata. If seeral large strats in different locations around the world are discovered that contain fossils that are C14 “deadâ€Â, this could falsify the hypothesis.

Fire when ready...lol!!! :o

 

[jwu]

However, the carbon did get removed from the cycle. Much of it continues to be removed (coal and oil deposits) . I f your contention is that these strata did not change the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio, then where did the additional carbon come from to maintain the ratio at it’s previous value?

Sorry, i don't understand what you're saying. What additional carbon? If i leave the room (this removing a majority of its carbon content), then that does not have any consequence for the ratio of C14/C12 in the room's air, does it?

Could you elaborate on your uniformitarian assumption that “pre-flood†biomass levels were the same as today?

Since evidence indicates that there was no flood, it's a non-issue.
However, even in order to account for nothing but the bitumenous coal deposits on earth being laid down by the flood, you need a level of vegetation which equals the entire earth (including the area now covereed by oceans) being covered by forests at a density higher than it exists in today's forests. Assuming all of the wood got fossilized, that is...else you need even more:

total amount of (sub-)bituminous coal 1.0 x 10^13 tonnes
surface area of earth 5.11 x 10^14 m^2
tonnes of coal per m^2 of surface 0.02 tonnes/m^2
density of coal 1.8 tonnes/m^3
so volume of coal per m^2 of surface 0.011 m^3/m^2
but
volume of wood contained in forest 600 m^3 / 10^4 m^2
= 0.06 m^3 / m^2
density of wood 0.4 tonnes/m^3
tonnes of wood per m^2 of surface 0.024 tonnes/m^2
so
m^3 of wood available for each m^3 of coal = 5
tonnes of wood available for each tonne of coal = 1.2

[not my own work, but that of a newsgroup poster named Roy]

Well...and then there is about 20 times as much oil on earth as there is coal (enough to cover the entire earth with a two foot deep layer).

Contradiction? I was simply explaining two different broad categories of limestone diagenesis. All limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate from water. One category precipitates directly, the other indirectly.

The detour involving animal shells is a very indirect way of precipitation from water ;)

What makes you think it takes a lot of time to create limestone? Why would there be plentiful, well preserved fossils in these formations if millions of years were involved in their diagenesis. To become fossilized, a plant or animal must be buried quickly. This negates the possibility of large amounts of time in limestone diagenesis.

We actually see it forming at that slow speed today, so evidently no quick burial is required. Keep in mind, these are anorganic shells, they don't decay. Furthermore these organisms grow very slowly, and in clear shallow water, as you said yourself. That's not the condition of a cataclysmic flood...and even if they actually could have survived under such conditions, you still have to explain what made them grow 20 million times faster as normal (in order to squeeze the growth into the duration of the flood, as the limestone itself again is covered by sediments which you necessarily have to attribute to the flood, as well as placed above other such supposed flood sediments)

Furthermore, if they formed during the flood, why are they so pure? Shouldn't lots of other sediments have mixed with it?

I’ve quoted the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank’s collection procedures below, which includes storing the samples in argon gas in sealed containers.The amounts of C14 indicated are 200-260 times the lower threshold of AMS dating standards: hardly a small sample. Bones are routinely retroactively dated with the AMS method to obtain more “precise datesâ€Â.The graph shows pmc, .i..e.- C12. The dates presented translate to approximately 30,000 rcybp.

Ah ok, and were they kept in that gas when the samples were crushed for testing and so on? I've actually seen a video on a major creationist website (i don't recall which one it was) which was supposed to show how unreliable C14 supposedly is in which such samples were processed with air contact, so how can i be sure that they didn't do it again?

The dates presented translate to approximately 30,000 rcybp

Actually a ratio of 0.0021-0.0027 translates to roughly 50000 years (else one wouldn't need AMS in first instance ;))

If a worldwide flood did occur, one would expect an exponential curve, decreasing at an increasing rate as the “date†of the flood is approached.

Why? How would the flood affect the decay rate? And if there was a lot of decay during the flood, then you should be able to attribute an "age range" to the flood period, e.g. the flood period actually being represented by C14 dates of 60000-whatever. Which is the lower boundary? Assuming C14 was affected the way you say (please don't forget to provide the mechanism for that effect on it), what C14 reading would we get from something that died right when the flood began and what reading would we get from something that lived right after the flood?

Worldwide?

Local, large scale, whatever.

I can’t really give you an opinion concerning the “burrowsâ€Â...I would need to see more geological context.I interpret the upright trees as being covered with sediment rapidly, and then fossilized in place. Interpreting the trees as growing through rock, coal, and other strata from deep underground makes less sense to me.

Trees growing in peat bogs which get covered by local landslides however does make sense.
How about dinosaur footprints on coal layers? The dinos should have been dead by then when there was the matter that later formed the coal in place
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html
And the coal layer isn't just covered by a few metres of sediments which could have been laid down by post flood landslides - it's in the middle of what you identified as the flood layers.

1. All created animals and plants should be present in all sedimentary strata (except those that became extinct before the “floodâ€Â). Continued fossil collection over time should reveal all species in these sedimentary strata (or at least the majority). If not, this would be a falsification of the model.

And that is exactly not what we see. Fossils are neatly sorted, and not according to some sort of hydrodynamical properties.

2. Lack of fossils in the sedimentary strata.

Could you elaborate how this would falsify the flood model?

3. Lack of huge layers of sedimentary strata. If it could demonstrated convincingly that Cambrian thorugh Cretaceous strata are not sedimentary, that would be a falsification. These “sedimentary†strata make up 88.5% of the geologic column

i'll read up on igneous rock then...there surely is a way to distinguish lava flows from aquatic eruptions from those on dry land.
Lava flows like that one surely don't form underwater, do you agree?
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cfd/g ... /flo12.jpg

5. An inabilty to distinguish where one species “stops†and another “ begins†in the fossil record. As fossils continue to be collected over time, there should become a “blur†between species to falsify the flood model.

That's what we see. The fossil record of course is far from complete, but basically all found fossils fit into the progression of evolution's phylogenic tree.

6. An inability to C14 date the majority of fossils and other organic depositions in these sedimentary strata. If several large strats in different locations around the world are discvered that contain fossils that are C14 “deadâ€Â, this could falsify the hypothesis.

Why, if you claim accellerated decay...

 

[Heidi]

How long have we heard arguments from the YEC'rs that Carbon 14 could not be counted on because it was wrong and the reality would be found that the earth is indeed much younger? Well read on and weep. The YEC'rs were correct in that the original testing methods were flawed but they have been corrected and guess what? Fossils are now determined to be older than previously thought not younger.
=============
"Other investigations of deep-sea sediments off Venezuela and ice-core records from Greenland yielded evidence of carbon variation problems, which turned out to be especially pronounced between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Accordingly, radiocarbon dates were recalibrated.

The revised dates, for example, show that a standard radiocarbon reading of 40,000 years translated into a calendar age of 43,000.

Even more consequential, a date of 35,000 years is revised to an actual age of 40,500, Mellars reported.

If correct, the new chronology means that fossil and archaeological evidence, especially in the crucial 30,000-to- 40,000-year period, is much older than once estimated.

Modern people may have arrived in Europe slightly earlier, but the extinction of the Neanderthals, previously thought to have occurred around 30,000 years ago, is now subject to greater revision because the standard dating yielded the most serious underestimates of true ages.

The degree of age discrepancies is also illustrated by the revised date for the splendid wall art in Chauvet cave, in southern France.

The charcoal used to produce the Chauvet drawings was originally dated around 31,000 to 32,000 years ago. A team of scientists reported in 2004 in the journal Science a revised date closer to 36,000 years ago."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php

Scientists are constantly correcting their previous theories which means that today's theories will also be corrected one day. But the truth never changes its mind. If it did, it wouldn't be the truth. So again, relying on fallible human beings for infallibility is a contradiction in itself. ;-)

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:
However, the carbon did get removed from the cycle. Much of it continues to be removed (coal and oil deposits) . I f your contention is that these strata did not change the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio, then where did the additional carbon come from to maintain the ratio at it’s previous value?

jwu:
Sorry, i don't understand what you're saying. What additional carbon? If i leave the room (this removing a majority of its carbon content), then that does not have any consequence for the ratio of C14/C12 in the room's air, does it?

One major part of the carbon cycle is the decomposition of carbon containing organisms, which
releases the carbon contained within them back into the atmosphere. Because the carboniferous
deposits are sealed off from exchange with the atmosphere (carbon sink).

Here’s an interesting paper from NASA concerning varying atmospheric C12 levels:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CarbonHydrology/

Your leaving the room would have no effect on the carbon cycle, because you are still exchanging
carbon with the atmosphere.

charlie:
Could you elaborate on your uniformitarian assumption that “pre-flood†biomass levels were the same as today?

jwu:
Since evidence indicates that there was no flood, it's a non-issue.
However, even in order to account for nothing but the bitumenous coal deposits on earth being laid down by the flood, you need a level of vegetation which equals the entire earth (including the area now covereed by oceans) being covered by forests at a density higher than it exists in today's forests. Assuming all of the wood got fossilized, that is...else you need even more:

jwu:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere [however] has changed significantly

in the past:

(brackets added for context)

Historical CO2 levels indicate there was much more atmospheric CO2 before the flood started, then a drastic drop as the flood progressed. This strenghtens the hypothesis that there was much more
plant matter pre-flood, compared to today (2000% difference in CO2 levels).

charlie:
What makes you think it takes a lot of time to create limestone? Why would there be plentiful, well preserved fossils in these formations if millions of years were involved in their diagenesis. To become fossilized, a plant or animal must be buried quickly. This negates the possibility of large amounts of time in limestone diagenesis.

jwu:
We actually see it forming at that slow speed today, so evidently no quick burial is required. Keep in mind, these are anorganic shells, they don't decay. Furthermore these organisms grow very slowly, and in clear shallow water, as you said yourself. That's not the condition of a cataclysmic flood...and even if they actually could have survived under such conditions, you still have to explain what made them grow 20 million times faster as normal (in order to squeeze the growth into the duration of the flood, as the limestone itself again is covered by sediments which you necessarily have to attribute to the flood, as well as placed above other such supposed flood sediments)

Furthermore, if they formed during the flood, why are they so pure? Shouldn't lots of other sediments have mixed with it?

charlie:
The Cretaceous limestone is the top of the flood strata. This is when oceans were slowly receding,
leaving behind stagnent pooled basins. The massive amounts of organic and inorganic calcium
carbonate precipatated out of the water as these pools evaporated, creating huge layers of pure
strata.

charlie:
I’ve quoted the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank’s collection procedures below, which includes storing the samples in argon gas in sealed containers.The amounts of C14 indicated are 200-260 times the lower threshold of AMS dating standards: hardly a small sample. Bones are routinely retroactively dated with the AMS method to obtain more “precise datesâ€Â.The graph shows pmc, .i..e.- C12. The dates presented translate to approximately 30,000 rcybp.

charlie:
The dates presented translate to approximately 30,000 rcybp

jwu:
Actually a ratio of 0.0021-0.0027 translates to roughly 50000 years (else one wouldn't need AMS in
first instance )

My bad...I stand corrected.

charlie:
If a worldwide flood did occur, one would expect an exponential curve, decreasing at an increasing
rate as the “date†of the flood is approached.

jwu:
Why? How would the flood affect the decay rate? And if there was a lot of decay during the flood, then you should be able to attribute an "age range" to the flood period, e.g. the flood period actually being represented by C14 dates of 60000-whatever. Which is the lower boundary? Assuming C14 was affected the way you say (please don't forget to provide the mechanism for that effect on it), what C14 reading would we get from something that died right when the flood began and what reading would we get from something that lived right after the flood?

A specimen before the flood would show a unrealistically

older date than a specimen buried a few decades after the flood, assuming

your measuring with uniformitarian assumptions.

Assuming the flood removed considerable C12, the current calibration curve

would show pre-flood specimens as unrealistically old.

If you take into account the C12 differential in your measurements, the

pre-flood specimen lines back up on the curve.


Very nice research coming up with that graph. I've looked and looked for

that exact data, in that format and never could come up with it.

Again, nice.

Proposed Flood Model Predictions Offered Up For Falsification


1. All created animals and plants should be present in all sedimentary strata (except those that became extinct before the “floodâ€Â). Continued fossil collection over time should reveal all species in these sedimentary strata (or at least the majority). If not, this would be a falsification of the model.

2. Lack of fossils in the sedimentary strata.

3. Lack of huge layers of sedimentary strata. If it could demonstrated convincingly that Cambrian through Cretaceous strata are not sedimentary, that would be a falsification. These “sedimentary†strata make up 88.5% of the geologic column

4. Lack of massive amounts of organic material, covered by higher strata.

5. An inability to distinguish where one species “stops†and another “ begins†in the fossil record. As fossils continue to be collected over time, there should become a “blur†between species to falsify the flood model.

6. An inability to C14 date the majority of fossils and other organic depositions in these sedimentary strata. If several large strats in different locations around the world are discovered that contain fossils that are C14 “deadâ€Â, this could falsify the hypothesis.

charlie:
All created animals and plants should be present in all sedimentary strata (except those that became extinct before the “floodâ€Â). Continued fossil collection over time should reveal all species in these sedimentary strata (or at least the majority). If not, this would be a falsification of the model.

jwu:
And that is exactly not what we see. Fossils are neatly sorted, and not according to some sort of
hydrodynamical properties.

charlie:
I think the fossil record depicts known hydrodynamical behaviour.
There’s uncomformities. But the overall sequence follows known hydraulic deposition processes.

charlie:
Lack of fossils in the sedimentary strata.

jwu:
Could you elaborate how this would falsify the flood model?

charlie:
If the geologic column was laid down slowly, over vast periods of time, fossils would not form in any
great numbers.
The organisms would decay before fossilization.

charlie:
Lack of huge layers of sedimentary strata. If it could demonstrated convincingly that Cambrian thorugh Cretaceous strata are not sedimentary, that would be a falsification. These “sedimentary†strata make up 88.5% of the geologic column

jwu:
i'll read up on igneous rock then...there surely is a way to distinguish lava flows from aquatic
eruptions from those on dry land.

charlie:
An inabilty to distinguish where one species “stops†and another “ begins†in the fossil record. As fossils continue to be collected over time, there should become a “blur†between species to falsify the flood model.

jwu:
That's what we see. The fossil record of course is far from complete, but basically all found fossils fit
into the progression of evolution's phylogenic tree.

charlie:
Well, I have to agree the fossil record is far from complete. For my hypothesis to be true, human
fossils should be found in the flood strata. As for the progression of evolution’s phylogenic tree, the
geologic record can be reasonably interpreted as normal hydraulic deposition and settling
(smallest to largest particles...in general). Either hypothesis still needs alot more data from the fossil
record to be validated or falsified.

An inability to C14 date the majority of fossils and other organic depositions in these sedimentary strata. If several large strats in different locations around the world are discovered that contain fossils that are C14 “deadâ€Â, this could falsify the hypothesis.

Why, if you claim accellerated decay...

charlie:

Because the accelerated decay I hypothesize was before the flood (actually

there’s a huge jump in C12 before the flood...not accelerated decay...but it

has the same results: Unrealistically old indicated dates).

I know we've already debated some of these above in the creationist

seminar posting, but I figured I'd go ahead and keep the continuity here.

 

[reznwerks]

[

Scientists are constantly correcting their previous theories which means that today's theories will also be corrected one day. But the truth never changes its mind. If it did, it wouldn't be the truth. So again, relying on fallible human beings for infallibility is a contradiction in itself. ;-)

Heidi you keep on singing that tune about the infallability of God and the bible. Could you show us some examples ? By the way as testing improves you might call it correcting but others call it progress. If man lived by your approach we would still be gathering wood and water everyday. Don't forget to read my latest post on "new kid on the block". It's more progress.

 

[Vanaka]

How long have we heard arguments from the YEC'rs that Carbon 14 could not be counted on because it was wrong and the reality would be found that the earth is indeed much younger? Well read on and weep. The YEC'rs were correct in that the original testing methods were flawed but they have been corrected and guess what? Fossils are now determined to be older than previously thought not younger.
=============
"Other investigations of deep-sea sediments off Venezuela and ice-core records from Greenland yielded evidence of carbon variation problems, which turned out to be especially pronounced between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Accordingly, radiocarbon dates were recalibrated.

The revised dates, for example, show that a standard radiocarbon reading of 40,000 years translated into a calendar age of 43,000.

Even more consequential, a date of 35,000 years is revised to an actual age of 40,500, Mellars reported.

If correct, the new chronology means that fossil and archaeological evidence, especially in the crucial 30,000-to- 40,000-year period, is much older than once estimated.

Modern people may have arrived in Europe slightly earlier, but the extinction of the Neanderthals, previously thought to have occurred around 30,000 years ago, is now subject to greater revision because the standard dating yielded the most serious underestimates of true ages.

The degree of age discrepancies is also illustrated by the revised date for the splendid wall art in Chauvet cave, in southern France.

The charcoal used to produce the Chauvet drawings was originally dated around 31,000 to 32,000 years ago. A team of scientists reported in 2004 in the journal Science a revised date closer to 36,000 years ago."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php

Maybe Carbon dating is the Crappiest possble Dating method, and EVOS know it, and just like the results...

BTW, better Start recaculating....

 

[reznwerks]

How long have we heard arguments from the YEC'rs that Carbon 14 could not be counted on because it was wrong and the reality would be found that the earth is indeed much younger? Well read on and weep. The YEC'rs were correct in that the original testing methods were flawed but they have been corrected and guess what? Fossils are now determined to be older than previously thought not younger.
=============
"Other investigations of deep-sea sediments off Venezuela and ice-core records from Greenland yielded evidence of carbon variation problems, which turned out to be especially pronounced between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Accordingly, radiocarbon dates were recalibrated.

The revised dates, for example, show that a standard radiocarbon reading of 40,000 years translated into a calendar age of 43,000.

Even more consequential, a date of 35,000 years is revised to an actual age of 40,500, Mellars reported.

If correct, the new chronology means that fossil and archaeological evidence, especially in the crucial 30,000-to- 40,000-year period, is much older than once estimated.

Modern people may have arrived in Europe slightly earlier, but the extinction of the Neanderthals, previously thought to have occurred around 30,000 years ago, is now subject to greater revision because the standard dating yielded the most serious underestimates of true ages.

The degree of age discrepancies is also illustrated by the revised date for the splendid wall art in Chauvet cave, in southern France.

The charcoal used to produce the Chauvet drawings was originally dated around 31,000 to 32,000 years ago. A team of scientists reported in 2004 in the journal Science a revised date closer to 36,000 years ago."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php

Maybe Carbon dating is the Crappiest possble Dating method, and EVOS know it, and just like the results...

BTW, better Start recaculating....

Would you accept the results if they agreed with you? It's all about the evidence. Do you have any?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Rez, take into account the drastically higher atmoshperic C12 levels in the

recent past. Note current levels and levels from the Carboniferous. What kind of

deductions could one make, taking these differences into account?

 

[reznwerks]

info

Rez, take into account the drastically higher atmoshperic C12 levels in the

recent past. Note current levels and levels from the Carboniferous. What kind of

deductions could one make, taking these differences into account?

Charlie look, you don't have secret or unknown info. The fact that what you are pushing is not making news should tell you something. The experts (by the thousands) have no doubt been presented info such as you suggest and no doubt it has been dealt with. The reality is that there are far more scientists that would love to turn the science community on its head. It's not happening.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie look, you don't have secret or unknown info. The fact that what you are pushing is not making news should tell you something. The experts (by the thousands) have no doubt been presented info such as you suggest and no doubt it has been dealt with. The reality is that there are far more scientists that would love to turn the science community on its head. It's not happening.

Have they, our are you just assumming so?

I've seen no studies concerning this issue. That doesn't mean a study

dealing with it doesn't exist, but I've yet to come across it?

Larger levels of CO2 in the relatively recent past would indicate

unrealistically old dates. The clincher is coal from the Carboniferous, which

repeatedly dates 50,000 rcybp, but according to uniformitarian assumptions,

is dated at 280 million years (Pennsylvanian). Look at the corresponding

radical dip in atmospheric levels of CO2 during the Carboniferous.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

It however would be indicated by samples whose ages were determined by

independent methods.

You still haven't explained what mechanism accounts for the correlation of

various independent dating methods. (Let's keep this focused in the other

C14 thread, there is no need to talk about the same things in two)

Welcome back jwu.

Good to see you back in the saddle.

Again, sorry for your loss.


O.K.

Remember, that varve and tree ring analyses use C14 dating to extend

their chronologies beyond 4500 years. So their really not independent.

Also, the internal validity of the counting is questionable, because

determining individual rings and varves is subjective.

Here's a excerpt from a recent article by Tony Baker, a leading researcher in

the current Clovis/preClovis debate occuring in North American archeological

circles:

...My complaint against C-14 dates is the way archaeologists "cherry pick" the data. How many dates have never been published because they did not match the investigator's anagenetic model? How many published dates have been scrutinized and attacked because they were inconsistent with the anagenetic model? Or, how many bad dates have been embraced and never challenged because they were consistent with the model?...

http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/pre-clovi ... is2004.htm

 

[jwu]

Historical CO2 levels indicate there was much more atmospheric CO2 before the flood started, then a drastic drop as the flood progressed. This strenghtens the hypothesis that there was much more
plant matter pre-flood, compared to today (2000% difference in CO2 levels).

I think this is a non-sequitur. More atmospheric CO2 does not directly translate into more plant matter.
Furthermore, how would the flood have removed that CO2 from the atmosphere? And the flood cannot possibly account for the amount of fossil fuel either. There is just too much of it to have been alive all at the same time. E.g. there is enough oil on earth to cover the entire earth (including oceans) with a two foot thick layer. And one does not get 1kg of oil from 1kg of bio mass...

A specimen before the flood would show a unrealistically
older date than a specimen buried a few decades after the flood, assuming
your measuring with uniformitarian assumptions.

No, since e.g. lake suigetsu is quite undisputably post-flood (according to your model) but encompasses pretty much the entire C14 age range, this scenario already is out of the question. Any form of accellerated decay (somehow without blowing up the earth) would have to have happened after the flood if there was one, in order to account for the in your scenario post-flood lake suigetsu results. Else the dates from that lake would be unaffected.

Furthermore, you said that the tertiary is post-flood...this doesn't fit together. We should consistently get(not just in case of some anomalies) nicely progressing C14 readings on things down to at least the K/T boundary then, but we don't.

I think these are key points that need some more attention.

Larger levels of CO2 in the relatively recent past would indicate

unrealistically old dates. The clincher is coal from the Carboniferous, which

repeatedly dates 50,000 rcybp, but according to uniformitarian assumptions,

is dated at 280 million years (Pennsylvanian). Look at the corresponding

radical dip in atmospheric levels of CO2 during the Carboniferous.

If i recall correctly i've addressed this before - in situ formation of C14 due to radioactivity.

Remember, that varve and tree ring analyses use C14 dating to extend
their chronologies beyond 4500 years. So their really not independent.

Varves do not in any way depend on C14 dating. In case of tree rings it's only used as a confirmation that two matching sequences of rings are really matching and it's not just a coincidence. This is completely independent from any changes of ratios, as both samples would be equally affected.

Also, the internal validity of the counting is questionable, because
determining individual rings and varves is subjective.

Annual varves are pretty safe to identify, as they contain pollen and so on. Very characteristic things for changes of seasons.

What is so special about that graph?

...My complaint against C-14 dates is the way archaeologists "cherry pick" the data. How many dates have never been published because they did not match the investigator's anagenetic model? How many published dates have been scrutinized and attacked because they were inconsistent with the anagenetic model? Or, how many bad dates have been embraced and never challenged because they were consistent with the model?...

I do agree that odd dates should not ne disregarded immediately, but snce no method is infallible, they are expected to occur. A vast majority however is consistent, something in the region of way beyond 90%

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I think this is a non-sequitur. More atmospheric CO2 does not directly translate into more plant matter.
Furthermore, how would the flood have removed that CO2 from the atmosphere? And the flood cannot possibly account for the amount of fossil fuel either. There is just too much of it to have been alive all at the same time. E.g. there is enough oil on earth to cover the entire earth (including oceans) with a two foot thick layer. And one does not get 1kg of oil from 1kg of bio mass...

What one does logically conclude is, if massive amounts of carbon

exchanging matter is buried all at once, atmospheric CO2 levels decline

rapidly. This is exactly what is represented in analysis of historical

atmospheric CO2 levels:

In this instance, the ID model seems to possess better predictive value

than the ToE model.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

...accellerated decay (somehow without blowing up the earth)...

Remember, it's not accelerated decay (though the processes involved have the

same net effect), but huge changes in atmospheric C14/C12 ratios that account

for "accelerated decay". Again, uniformitarian assumptions get one into

trouble.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Varves do not in any way depend on C14 dating. In case of tree rings it's only used as a confirmation that two matching sequences of rings are really matching and it's not just a coincidence. This is completely independent from any changes of ratios, as both samples would be equally affected.

The point is the comparisons that supposedly validate the methods are

compared by C14 dating. Also, internal sequences beyond 4500 years are

extrapolated according to C14 dating. So each of these comparisons

"cross-checking" the various "absolute" dating methods to ascertain the

validity of each method are subject to non-uniformatarian influences not

accounted for in uniformatarian interpretations.

 

[jwu]

Remember, it's not accelerated decay (though the processes involved have the
same net effect), but huge changes in atmospheric C14/C12 ratios that account
for "accelerated decay". Again, uniformitarian assumptions get one into
trouble.

How so? You have not provided any mechanism for it. The flood doesn't cut it there, as it is completely unable to account for "old" readings on things which would have to be post flood according to your own model.

And besides, you also still have to explain why and how other dating methods (such as the uranium dates of corals) would have been affected in th same degree.

The point is the comparisons that supposedly validate the methods are
compared by C14 dating. Also, internal sequences beyond 4500 years are
extrapolated according to C14 dating.

Again, that doesn't cut it. The samples only have to give the same C14 reading in order to be verified with C14. If that reading translates to 4500 years or 20000 years is irrelevant, as if both samples give the same reading, odds are that they are both of the same age.

In case of dendrochronolgy the C14 only establishes the relative age. The tree rings are then counted for the absolute age. Of course, occasionally a ring can be skipped or a year can come up with two, but in general it's quite absolute.

So each of these comparisons
"cross-checking" the various "absolute" dating methods to ascertain the
validity of each method are subject to non-uniformatarian influences not
accounted for in uniformatarian interpretations.

Then what is the actual scenario which accounts for the correlation of various (not just two or three) dating methods?
Please provide a detailed explaination for events at what time put off the tree rings (i.e. a scenario which produces matching patterns and also a C14 match), varve counts (no flood allowed as the varves neccessarily have to be post flood) and uranium dating of coral layers from three different locations. What particular event which had what effects happened at what "absolute" time?

I'd be grateful if you could draw up some diagrams in e,g, Paint or Excel or make tables, so one can conclusively see where in your model e.g. the varve formation of lake suigetsu began and for how long it happened at what speed. Alternatively, some verbal explainations which i could assemble into such a table/diagram myself would be nice (i.e. something like "begin 2200BC, 30 varves per year for 1000 years, then a linear drop to 1 varve per year over the course of another 1000 years").
The same about coral growth and radioactive decay and tree ring formation and C12/C14 ratio in the atmosphere.

Then we can assemble all these things and take a look if it comes up with straight lines which look like uniformitarianism had taken place instead. Of course you wouldn't have to get everything right on the first try...let's just see if it is even generally possible to get such neat lines.

Befor this happened you do not have a working model! (and afterwards it still has toa ccount for many more things, but let's take one step at a time).

Again the infamous graph which shows all of them correlating:

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:


Remember, it's not accelerated decay (though the processes involved have the same net effect), but huge changes in atmospheric C14/C12 ratios that account for "accelerated decay". Again, uniformitarian assumptions get one into trouble.

jwu:

How so? You have not provided any mechanism for it. The flood doesn't cut it there, as it is completely unable to account for "old" readings on things which would have to be post flood according to your own model.

And besides, you also still have to explain why and how other dating methods (such as the uranium dates of corals) would have been affected in the same degree.

The mechanism is the abrupt removal of vast amounts of carbon producing/

exchanging plant life represented in the Carboniferous, and the huge spike or rebound

after this removal. We currently live in an atmosphere with some of the lowest CO2

levels ever recorded. As one progresses back in time, atmospheric C12 levels increase at

an increasing rate all the way back to the Jurassic. How can one say that the different

dating methods validate one another, when there’s obvious flaws in the C14 dating

assumptions to begin with. It’s like validating he invalid.

You can't really compare uranium and C14 dating: their two different animals.

The uranium-series dating method supposedly operates on the tendency of corals to

crystallize microscopic amounts of uranium from sea water. Once the uranium is

incorporated into the coral, it hypothetically begins to decay at “known rates†into

different atomic forms, or isotopes, called thorium-230 and protactinium-231. Sea water

has very little of these isotopes floating freely in it, so the amount of thorium-230 and

protactinium-231 in the coral sample is minute. For Uranium-Thorium dating, the initial

ratio of 230Th/234U at the time of sample formation must be known or calculated. The

method assumes that the sample does not exchange 230Th or 234U with the environment

(i.e., that it is a closed system., which we’ve determined doesn’t exist) Through

circular reasoning, comparing the thorium and protactinium “dates†allegely verifies the

accuracy of each “independent†age estimate, even they both depend on the same

assumptions and overall decay sequence/ rate.

http://geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/14c_uth.gif

Note, in the above diagram, the tree ring, varve and C14 dates all appear in very close

correlation. This is because C14 dating methods are “calibrated†based on tree rings.

Varve sequences are validated via C14 dating. These two methods are then used to

validate C14 dating...and round and round we go.

Note that the 230Th/234Udates are all over the place: +/- 12,000 years over just a 45,000

year span. Who knows how these dates were selected. The whole sample may have been

even more erratic (i.e- the cherry picking referred to earlier).

charlie:

The point is the comparisons that supposedly validate the methods are
compared by C14 dating. Also, internal sequences beyond 4500 years are

extrapolated according to C14 dating.

jwu:

Again, that doesn't cut it. The samples only have to give the same C14 reading in order to be verified with C14. If that reading translates to 4500 years or 20000 years is irrelevant, as if both samples give the same reading, odds are that they are both of the same age.

In case of dendrochronolgy the C14 only establishes the relative age. The tree rings are then counted for the absolute age. Of course, occasionally a ring can be skilled or a year can come up with two, but in general it's quite absolute.

Or, they are affected by the same set of uniformitarian assumptions.

All these methods assume that conditions today approximately estimate conditions in the

past. We know this not to be true:

charlie:

So each of these comparisons
"cross-checking" the various "absolute" dating methods to ascertain the
validity of each method are subject to non-uniformatarian influences not
accounted for in uniformatarian interpretations

.

Then what is the actual scenario which accounts for the correlation of various (not just two or three) dating methods?
Please provide a detailed explaination for events at what time put off the tree rings (i.e. a scenario which produces matching patterns and also a C14 match), varve counts (no flood allowed as the varves neccessarily have to be post flood) and uranium dating of coral layers from three different locations. What particular event which had what effects happened at what "absolute" time?

I'd be grateful if you could draw up some diagrams in e,g, Paint or Excel or make tables, so one can conclusively see where in your model e.g. the varve formation of lake suigetsu began and for how long it happened at what speed. Alternatively, some verbal explainations which i could assemble into such a table/diagram myself would be nice (i.e. something like "begin 2200BC, 30 varves per year for 1000 years, then a linear drop to 1 varve per year over the course of another 1000 years").


The same about coral growth and radioactive decay and tree ring formation and C12/C14

atio in the atmosphere.

Then we can assemble all these things and take a look if it comes up with straight lines which look like uniformitarianism had taken place instead. Of course you wouldn't have to get everything right on the first try...let's just see if it is even generally possible to get such neat lines.

Before this happened you do not have a working model! (and afterwards it still has to

account for many more things, but let's take one step at a time).

Again the infamous graph which shows all of them correlating:

[/quote]

Excellent idea. I wonder why this hasn’t been addressed in this manner before.

I feel somewhat unqualified to set this model up, but someone has to do it.

ID needs a definite model, that is open to falsification and should include predictions

based on the model, that are also falsifiable. Through you playing advesary to the model,

we can see if a workable, rational model can be derived.

Here’s the original, very rough, very general model I proposed for falsification in our

earlier post:

1. All created animals and plants should be present in all sedimentary strata (except those that became extinct before the “floodâ€Â). Continued fossil collection over time should reveal all species in these sedimentary strata (or at least the majority). If not, this would be a falsification of the model.

2. Lack of fossils in the sedimentary strata.

3. Lack of huge layers of sedimentary strata. If it could demonstrated convincingly that Cambrian thorugh Cretaceous strata are not sedimentary, that would be a falsification. These “sedimentary†strata make up 88.5% of the geologic column

4. Lack of massive amounts of organic material, covered by higher strata.

5. An inabilty to distinguish where one species “stops†and another “ begins†in the fossil record. As fossils continue to be collected over time, there should become a “blur†between species to falsify the flood model.

6. An inability to C14 date the majority of fossils and other organic depositions in these sedimentary strata. If several large strats in different locations around the world are discovered that contain fossils tat are C14 “deadâ€Â, this could falsify the hypothesis.

Fire when ready...lol!!!

I’ll start to build on this crude, rough model.

 

[jwu]

The mechanism is the abrupt removal of vast amounts of carbon producing/
exchanging plant life represented in the Carboniferous, and the huge spike or rebound
after this removal. We currently live in an atmosphere with some of the lowest CO2
levels ever recorded. As one progresses back in time, atmospheric C12 levels increase at
an increasing rate all the way back to the Jurassic.

And how exactly and when did this happen? I take it that this is a flood event. How can this possibly affect dates from things which formed after the flood? That's exactly the point i was making with the Suigetsu dates, for which exactly this explaination doesn't work.

And besides...how would the removal of plant matter affect atmospheric C12 levels? Plant matter does not produce it, it merely binds it. If a large quantity of plant matter is removed, then the current C12 content of the atmopshere is not affected at all.
Furthermore, i guess you refer to the coal and oil deposits of the earth as being the current location of this plant matter - that"s impossible, that much plant matter couoldn't have been alive at once when the flood happened, it's just too much.

How can one say that the different
dating methods validate one another, when there’s obvious flaws in the C14 dating
assumptions to begin with. It’s like validating he invalid.
You can't really compare uranium and C14 dating: their two different animals.
The uranium-series dating method supposedly operates on the tendency of corals to
crystallize microscopic amounts of uranium from sea water.

Exactly because they are so different, that's the whole point!
There is no reason why both should be off by the same degree if they both were flawed. Since they are agree, the single best explaination for this correlation is that they work as thought.

Through
circular reasoning, comparing the thorium and protactinium “dates†allegely verifies the
accuracy of each “independent†age estimate, even they both depend on the same
assumptions and overall decay sequence/ rate.

Assumptions which can and have been verified, and independent mechanisms. This is not circular. E.g. the varves were counted. That count does not depend on C14 dating being accurate ion any way. The same with the corals - the count of the coral layers does not depend on any radiomnetric dating.

Of course, nothing is ever "proven", but isn't it extremely unlikely that there is such a correlation if the dating methods were flawed?

Note, in the above diagram, the tree ring, varve and C14 dates all appear in very close
correlation. This is because C14 dating methods are “calibrated†based on tree rings.
Varve sequences are validated via C14 dating. These two methods are then used to
validate C14 dating...and round and round we go.

No! If that was so, we should get a perfectly straight line. What you see on this graph is the raw data, the uncalibrated C14 dates in relation to the ring/varve counts.

Note that the 230Th/234Udates are all over the place: +/- 12,000 years over just a 45,000
year span. Who knows how these dates were selected. The whole sample may have been
even more erratic (i.e- the cherry picking referred to earlier).

Evil Atheist Conspiracy? Sorry, no cherry picking there.
Occasional strange results may be discarded when objects are dated in daily business with various samples and one gets results like 1200, 1150, 1190, 1700, 1215, but that does not happen in such fundamental papers. Don't you think it'd get ripped to pieces in peer review if that happened? That'd be the immediate end of the career of the one who wrote such a paper.

Or, they are affected by the same set of uniformitarian assumptions.
All these methods assume that conditions today approximately estimate conditions in the
past. We know this not to be true:

And exactlty because we know that deviations happened and what particular deviatiuons happened based on independent methods of determining them, we can account for them. I find it odd that you use exactly this graph which deals with millions of years...

Just take your time with the model...but please be sure to account for the lake suitegsu dates being post flood...i think that"s going to be a big problem for it.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

How can one say that the different
dating methods validate one another, when there’s obvious flaws in the C14 dating
assumptions to begin with. It’s like validating he invalid.
You can't really compare uranium and C14 dating: their two different animals.
The uranium-series dating method supposedly operates on the tendency of corals to
crystallize microscopic amounts of uranium from sea water.

jwu:

Exactly because they are so different, that's the whole point!
There is no reason why both should be off by the same degree if they both were flawed. Since they are agree, the single best explaination for this correlation is that they work as thought.

http://geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/14c_uth.gif

Yeah, but notice the tight correlation of the C14 based dating and very

loose correlation of the 230Th/234U dating.

This is my point. All the C14 based dating methods are tightly correlated

(which is expected in my hypothesis), but using another dating method

indicates huge discordance between the two.

Notice the tighter correlations the younger the dates become. This exactly

the opposite of what is expected. The older dates contain more

230Th, and thus less probablity for false readings. Yet the older dates are

much less correlated than the younger dates. This smacks of cherry picking

the earlier dates.

jwu:

And how exactly and when did this happen? I take it that this is a flood event. How can this possibly affect dates from things which formed after the flood? That's exactly the point i was making with the Suigetsu dates, for which exactly this explaination doesn't work.



And besides...how would the removal of plant matter affect atmospheric C12 levels? Plant matter does not produce it, it merely binds it. If a large quantity of plant matter is removed, then the current C12 content of the atmopshere is not affected at all.
Furthermore, i guess you refer to the coal and oil deposits of the earth as being the current location of this plant matter - that"s impossible, that much plant matter couoldn't have been alive at once when the flood happened, it's just too much.

The carbon containing biomass is buried and no longer able to exchange

with the atmosphere (carbon sink). This is what the flood model

hypothesizes, and the prediction appears to be validated:

Uniformitarian assumptions do not predict this rapid drop in historical

atmospheric CO2 levels.