Updating The Theory of the Earth

[Loudmouth]

RickG -- I will respond a) to your introductory statement, and b) to your 6 points:

a) You and I both identify ourselves as Christians. I expect nonbelievers to distrust my motivations and my zeal for truth. I hope that Christians would at least give me the benefit of the doubt until I show myself unworthy of their trust. What have I said, that you question my desire to understand or that you accuse me of ranting?

If you have a zeal for truth, why do you continue to push your ideas even when they have been proven wrong?

4. The purpose of carbon dating a dinosaur fossil is to find evidence for an hypothesis which is contrary to the standard mainstream position.

Doing so is extremely dishonest. Carbon dating could not return an age of 65 million years old, even if the sample were 65 million years old. They have rigged their test from the get go. When your method of measurement maxes out at just 1% of the actual age of the fossil, YOU SHOULDN'T BE USING THAT METHOD. What they should be using is a method that is capable of measuring ages into the millions of years.

6. In 1850, the greater scientific community didn't believe in meteorites; in 1900, it didn't realize the implications of relativity and quantum theory; in 1950, it didn't know about space travel or modern computers; in 2000, it didn't know about soft tissue existing in dinosaur fossils. Do I think the greater scientific community can be wrong or ignorant? Yes.

Do you think you can be wrong or ignorant?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well you could check out this site.

http://geoscience.wisc.edu/~chuck/Classes/Mtn_and_Plates/rock_deformation.html

They make the point that such deformation without breaking happens more easily when the rock is hotter. So deformation without breaking is said to occur more readily way underground, and then becomes seen when erosion and/or uplift raises the deformed rocks.

That is certainly one explanation. They can cold flow, warm flow, or hot flow.
Each would have it's own time frame from original lay-down to current
situation. How do I test each possibility, and how do I determine the
conditions of the entire process from start to finish?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have given what I understand to be the proposed young earth explanation for the apparent inconsistency earlier in this thread. Simplified, it is that in the past, the C14/C12 ratio was much lower, giving inflated ages from carbon dating.

Then why doesn't it show up as a major deviation in the data?

The dendro age on the x-axis is the age as measured by counting tree rings. The y-axis is the carbon age assuming a constant 14C concentration. As you can see, the data doesn't veer far from the 1:1 line demonstrating very little change in the carbon ratios.

 

[Loudmouth]

My post was not meant to be condescending in the least. I made that comment because you made a statement that seemed to question the calibration curve. Perhaps you are not not communicating in a manner that I interpret what you are saying correctly. Keep in mind that you are communicating from a position of no formal education or experience in the area of radiocarbon dating, with a person who possesses both. I would be just as confused questioning your area of professionalism. Here, I'll provide another example. You just stated: "I am aware of the calibration of carbon dating to make it more consistent with tree ring dating." To me that is not very clear and appears to me that we match the two together, which is incorrect. The calibration curve is derived in part from tree ring data. It is from tree ring data, which correlates the chronology of the tree rings with the measured content of 14C in each of those chronological rings. Furthermore, tree rings have their limitations to only some 8 to 9 Ky. From that point on varves and speleothems take it up to 50 Ky and somewhat beyond. If tree rings and 14C matched there would be no need for a calibration curve.



You did not make that clear in my opinion. Again, probably a difference in our levels of understanding and the use of terminology. Those known variations are based off a lot of data from many many many independent sources and exceed 50 Ky. Keep in mind that 14C is formed in the upper atmosphere from a reaction between 14N and gamma rays and combining with oxygen (O2) forming carbon dioxide (CO2). Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a well mixed long lived greenhouse gas. Any anomalous spikes would linger for a very long time and would show up quite vividly in the data we have, especially with respect to tree rings which continuously absorb 14C. That is why I say the suggestion that there may be unknown spikes does not hold water. And please do not misunderstand, I am not saying the calibration curve is perfect or flawless. We are always collecting data and refining the curve to produce better accuracy.

Another think to keep in mind with respect to a spike in 14C in the calibration curve. If there were more 14C unaccounted for, the dates obtained would be younger, not older.

I couldn't find the exact graph I was looking for, but aren't there dendro records where the spike of 14C from atmospheric atomic bomb testing shows up as clear as a bell?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is certainly one explanation. They can cold flow, warm flow, or hot flow.
Each would have it's own time frame from original lay-down to current
situation. How do I test each possibility, and how do I determine the
conditions of the entire process from start to finish?

Well, I'm not a geologist, I don't have answers at that level of detail. Presumably the way to attack the problem would be to develop theory and formula for rock deformation at various pressures and temperatures, then plug in reasonable amounts based on the known geological facts, and see what the formulas predict as to deformation versus time, heat, and pressure. Then see if rock beds showing actual rock folds had a history consistent with the necessary deformation heat and pressure to result in such folds.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, I'm not a geologist, I don't have answers at that level of detail. Presumably the way to attack the problem would be to develop theory and formula for rock deformation at various pressures and temperatures, then plug in reasonable amounts based on the known geological facts, and see what the formulas predict as to deformation versus time, heat, and pressure. Then see if rock beds showing actual rock folds had a history consistent with the necessary deformation heat and pressure to result in such folds.

And when there is only one possible explanation left, however unlikely,
that must be the correct one. I must wonder how many people reach
that point before publishing?

 

[Loudmouth]

This post made me angry for at least two reasons:
(1) "Do you not see this?" was very condescending and undeserved. If you had looked at any of the many times this topic has come up before in this thread, you would know I am aware of the calibration of carbon dating to make it more consistent with tree ring dating.

Then you should also be aware that the tree ring data contradicts what you are saying. If there was a major change in the carbon isotope ratios in the past then it would show up in the tree ring data. It isn't there. So why do you keep pushing this idea of huge changes in carbon isotope ratios? Are you more interested in reaching the conclusion that you want instead of the truth?

The facts are that the calibration curve corrects for some relatively small (2 to 3%) known variations. What I was suggesting was an unknown, much greater variation.

If there was a huge variation it would have shown up in the tree ring data.

You can argue that such a variation doesn't exist, but you cannot logically argue that the calibration curve corrects for it.

Why can't we argue that the calibration curve corrects for small fluctuations in historic concentrations of 14C? After all, THAT'S THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CALIBRATION CURVE!!!!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And when there is only one possible explanation left, however unlikely,
that must be the correct one. I must wonder how many people reach
that point before publishing?

It depends on what you mean there by "unlikely". Unlikely events happen all the time. And I see nothing wrong with the logic of "when there is only one possible explanation left, however unlikely, that must be the correct one". Do you see something wrong with it?

 

[RickG]

I couldn't find the exact graph I was looking for, but aren't there dendro records where the spike of 14C from atmospheric atomic bomb testing shows up as clear as a bell?

Yes, it is note worthy for everyone to understand that carbon dating works from a baseline of 1950, in part because of that spike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a graph from the paper I was thinking of (Irish dendro records):

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004GeCoA..68.2509M

This is the type of signal we would expect to see in the dendro record if there was a sudden change in 14C 3,000 years ago, but it isn't there.