News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

We can take it in simple, easy to understand steps. With replies and rebuttals on each piece of evidence. We'll start by looking at the methodology of counting annual layers in several different systems, comparing correlations between them, and building up the minimum necessary age of the earth as we go.

First up is the "Methuselah Tree":
(bold added for empHAsis)

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957. These cores are available for scientists (dendrochronologists) to count and verify the results.

Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth must be at least 4,839 years.

Also, due to the nature of the evidence being a living tree this means there was no flood that covered this area during that time.

Any Comment so far?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I choose threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Not neccesarily. trees do survive floods, they grow from the roots, so does grass, all sorts of stuff. you should try killing a tree sometime. It's very difficult. You really have to uproot it completely. or use poison of some sort. Right outside my door are thousands of trees with their roots underwater, they grow out of the edge of the river, strong and sturdy. massive as a matter of fact. They love the location, with their roots underwater.

how exactly do they count tree rings accurately without cutting the tree down anyway? it would have to be an estimate, not an actual ring count. Various factors can add more than one ring per year also. Bex found some info about that.

the forest service claims there are lots of trees that old, some older than that. why would they protect that one?

Thank you SoSick for these good questions.

They take a core sample. Actually they take several samples to compare for consistent counts. See this picture for a core and try this wiki link for a picture of a core drill and some further information.

Also see Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change for more information and see this page for some basics
The question is not whether there can be extra rings or missing rings - there can, because we are dealing with natural living organisms in a variable environment - the question is whether we can identify when this happens and be able to correct the data. The slide show talks about how that is done in a fairly simple format.

The article that Bex was talking about is likely this one by Don Batten where he states:
I only need to note these things:

• he was able to identify all five rings as being false rings without any problem,
• if he was making a chronology he could deduct 5 years from this tree,
• he doesn't tell you about missing or partial rings, rings that don't grow for the year in question, or that are incomplete (say from a summer on a mountain top being too cold for growth) and which may be missed by the core, and which would make the trees too young if this effect was not determined,
• he doesn't tell you how he determined the missing rings, or provide any data from this "research", or a link to where the information could be found, so we also don't know what the %error would be involved if these were counted in error,
• dendrochronology uses multiple cores from multiple trees from multiple sites to build up a chronology rather than rely on one tree, and reduce these uncertainties and finally
• he uses intentional mis-direction (remember the "Russ Tanner Manifesto Lie Test"?) to talk about a completely different species - in an entirely different subgenus, that grows in a completely different environment, and that has been bred for fast growth by the forest industry - with the stated implication that they are the same tree. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud . The genus Pinus - which includes all pine trees - includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.

(See Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud for a more complete critique of the lies of Don Batten.)

Once again I need to ask, if creationism is true, then why do creationists (like Don Batten) need to lie about the facts?
Because it is the oldest living organism they know of (& that can be dated), tree, mushroom, coral, whatever, and because one other that was older was cut down and a lot of people were upset and blamed them for being lax and careless. Personally it doesn't make much difference, because a tree cannot grow further into the past, no matter how old it is.

The older tree was the "Prometheus Tree":
From this article on Bristlecone Pine information:
With an age of 4,789 years in 1964 when the tree was cut down this means that "Prometheus" or WPM-114 has an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE, just a little bit older than "Methuselah" (estimated germination 2,832 BCE). This is substantiating evidence for this age, and we will get to correlations between these trees in greater detail later in this discussion.

Enjoy

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I choose threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Never say never RAZD.

I can see you'd like to present yourself as knowledgable in all sorts of facts, but the world is full of inconsistencies as far as facts of this nature are concerned.

Highly unlikely an altuitude of 3000 feet in CA would present a year too cold for growth.

Your Russ Tanner manifesto lie test is highly subjective I might point out. It again assumes you know more about anything than anyone. highly unlikely RAZD.

Plus, you deny God. that's your biggest error and will eventually be your downfall.

Lemme know when you find him.

Can you respond to the facts above, apart from commenting that you personally think something is unlikely? Dendochronology is an established science and RAZD is telling you about it not because he's expecting to be told off for being "smart" (why should that be a problem anyway?), but because he wants you to engage with the existing evidence. As I've said in previous posts, if creationism is going to hold up as a viable theory, it needs to actually fit the facts. Questioning whether this is so is what science does with any theory in order to test how robust it is. So how about it?

That's my answer. Sorry you don't approve of it, Linda, but your approval is not required.

You and RAZD do not offer an argument which includes creation so you will always encounter opposition while making this rather facetious appearance of discussing it, disproving it, whatever.

You do not include God in your equation, whereas every person who believes in God and creation, does.

Pretty simple.

Until you include God in your equations you will continually run up against a brick wall with this because it is impossible to even begin the discussion as a result. You keep heading back to evolution evolution evolution. Very nice. but inadequate, sorry. You ask others to consider what you feel is valid evidence but you toss theirs away.

Discuss it with yourself i guess.

Your god has nothing to do with this discussion, as the debate is not religious in origin.

Nothing stated above has anything to do with religion or gods. In fact, I rather get the impression you're trying to impose an atheistic standpoint on RAZD, yet he has not once mentioned the existence or absense of gods. This is likely because we are not discussing religion or anything that in any way, shape, or form pertains to religon. Apples and oranges here, folks.

If someone asked if I agree that 2+2=4 I would not interject by saying I refuse to answer it on the grounds that they have not discussed my own personal gods. After all, my religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Understandable pwcca, that works for you. No one is arguing that 2+2 does not =4. Though RAZD did claim that 1+1 does not =2 so... maybe you need to discuss that with him.

But anyway... your gods, shall we call them by their common name.. daemons? They are not the God that is being called into question with discussions of the flood.

It's impossible to have a discussion of the flood based only on facts of this nature while leaving God himself out of the equation. How do you do that? It's his flood. If he can make it rain and and rain for months on end then we have to assume he can do much more probably lots of things we haven't even thought of. RAZD's tree facts don't bother me at all btw, i did say that above, it's not problem for me to imagine a tree surviving a bout of 6-8 months underwater and then springing back to life with a bud or two. The only ones that would have died for sure for sure, are the ones that fell over (uprooted)due to soft muddy water bogged earth. that doesnt apply to trees that wrap their roots into rock, which is the example RAZD gave above. Rock doesn't get squishy when it gets real wet so those trees would have gotten quite a soaking but their roots would not have been affected. It's not as though they were underwater for 5 or 10 years. Visit a mangrove swamp sometime.

I think the evo group should do a bit more thinking of the contradicting possibilities before presenting evidence, and they do need to include God when presenting evidence against him.

They present their case as a .... if the flood occurred how come this looks like this... they do not ever say.. but IF God exists he could have managed to do this... so their arguments fail every time from the perspective of someone who does believe in God.

If they want to consistently leave God out of the equation, then they should be prepared, not to simply present 'fact' after 'fact' that they think proves his works are not true... but they need to disprove God himself, his existence, first, in order to even enter into it as serious discussion. Until that happens, their indirect accusations of what God can do and what God cannot do, simply remain in the realm of illogical insolence toward him, and great arrogance on their part due to seeing themselves as so knowledgable about God while denying he exists.

If you want to deny God exists, then prove it.

Fortunately nature is not inhibited in any way by your opinion.

You could easily google >"bristlecone pine" "growing season"< and find the answer. The National Park Service says:
(color and bold for empHASis)

... and this article, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, has this to say:
Only 42+/- days per year for growing makes it difficult to grow beans eh? Needless to say it is a very different ecology than most people are familiar with (or perhaps even imagine).

Notice 10,000 feet, not 3,000. Helps to get your facts right eh?

Notice the correlation to historical events. That helps establish the veracity of the tree rings. We'll get into more correlations as the evidence mounts, for that is the really interesting part about evidence of truth - it comes from multiple sources, sometimes unexpected.
Perhaps just your interpretation. Perhaps I ask god how he did it. Care to address the issue?
Why do you lie so, SoSick? You KNOW that is not what I said, and yet this is the second time you have tried this pitiful character assassination type attack.
(link added for those interested in the test, especially the bit about resorting to character assassination ...)

No, it just assumes that I know when YOU are lying. Which appears to be frequently.
QED -- again.

[color:"blue"]If creationism is true why do creationists need to lie? So much for creationist ethics and creationist moral values eh?[/color]

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Well you should have caught the error when I said 3000 ft. But instead you just prod right along without thinking...

the actual statement was 'the Methuselah Grove at between 2,900–3,000 m above sea level' which is actually about 8500 ft or so above ses level.

It gets hot as heck sometimes in summer at 3000 feet btw. Much better than 1500 feet but still hot, well into the 90's sometimes.

Where did I lie? 1+1 does not =2. That is exactly what you said and you just quoted it again above.



I guess you are left in a position of proving God does not exist, and proving that objective reality does, and furthermore that your idea exists within it.

Thanks for catching the 3000' glitch. But it only adds more weight to the position that those trees weren't covered with water for very long in the flood.



Please do. Ask God.

Please do, prove I am lying. Show us God does not exist, show us objective reality does, with your ideas within it.

Thanks SoSick,

What I actually said was "[color:"blue"]see if you can show that 1+1=2 has validity in the world of objective reality[/color]" so it appears that either you are lying about what I said or you have a sever problem with comprehending what I said.

That 1+1=2 is an abstract mathematical assumption, essentially the definition of "2" (in any base above binary), is beside the point: the point is that this is an intellectual abstraction with no relationship to the objective world - there are no two identical objects (god being so clever), so it doesn't have validity in the world of objective reality. That's the point.

We count things only by assuming a sufficient similarity, making an abstract model of reality, not by any real objective identity. That assumption does not compel objects to become identical, which is what would have to happen if math could affect the world of objective reality.

Notice that you're complete, utter, and total inability to prove me wrong leaves you with either of two choices: continue to misrepresent what I said (hide from your objective created reality) or accept the validity of my statement that math is irrelevant to reality.
Note that one of the methodologies of distraction is to keep mentioning information already known to be irrelevant to the issue: we don't need to know what it is like at 3,000 feet in some places, we need to know what it is like in the area in question:
(bold and color for emPHAsis)

Not very "life-friendly" a place.

Now let's discuss your comment on message 248007:
Some trees yes (especially ones growing in flood prone zones that have adapted to frequent flooding - doesn't apply to Bristlecones), some trees no (especially ones in areas that have never been flooded). As far as I know Bristlecones have not been tested by flood conditions in recent years to see how flood resistant they are, but we can leave this for now, and discuss other issues related to floods and evidence.

Here's some more information about the Bristlecone pines:
So there are several living trees over 4,000 years old. Then we have the problem of all the dead wood lying around. From Botanical and Ecological Characteri...S Forest Service, Howard, Janet L. 2004):
So now we have a bit of a minor conundrum for the recent mountaintop flood hypothesis crowd, as either

• the old dead trees lying around are from before the flood and were carried here and deposited by receding waters (is spite of the evidence not bearing any relationship to that kind of effect), and thus the earth must be at least 5,000+ before flood years + 2,880 BCE + 2007 = 9,887+ years old minimum, OR
• they have fallen post flood (or the water would have carried the wood away) and there must be substantial overlap between the dead and fallen trees and the still living trees, with a total age well over 5,000 years.

If this second conclusion is the case, then we can build a dendrochronology from the trees by finding the evidence of overlapped growth in the rings. This is what dendrochronology does:
Thus we have a record annual tree rings due to the difference in seasons, and a record of climate differences from year to year in the different thicknesses of complete annual rings.

This is where those correlations start to come into play. Summary to date:

• we have several living trees 3,000 years to 4,000+ years old,
• we have two living, or cut down while living, trees over 2007 + 2,832 BCE (the younger one of the two) = 4,839 years old,
• we have several dead trees over 5,000 years old,
• we have many specimens\samples that logically overlap in ages (or that add up to much older age),
• trees produce annual rings in response to the changes in seasons,
• trees produce different thickness rings in response to differences in climate from year to year,
• methods of matching climate patterns between different trees can be tested with the two living, or cut down while living, trees over 4,839 years old, to gage the amount of error likely in the process,
• sometimes conditions are so sever that some Bristlecone pines do not produce a growth ring for the year, while other conditions (freezing for example) can produce something that looks something like an annual ring (a "false" ring) in some trees,
• a volcano, Santorini, erupted during the summer of 1627 BCE and led to the destruction the Minoan civilization (historical event),
• the tree ring growth for that year was prematurely halted and the ring showes less growth than normal with damage from freezing,
• this correlation validates the tree ring counting to 1627 BCE (an outside check on errors), and
• we can look for other historically dated events that impact the rings to be able to judge the overall consistency of the method.

It will come as little surprise to you that this has already been done by people spending years on the study (sometimes devoting their lives to it - like Schulman), checking the data and looking for possible sources of errors.

Again, from the dendrochronology above:
So it looks like you have a minimum age of the earth of 9,000 years with the samples overlapping or 9,887+ years if they don't overlap.

And we have only begun to discuss the correlations with other data, but that's enough for now.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

RAZD, sincerely, prove you wrong about what? You haven't really said anything all this time. You've presented your few little facts that anyone can look up in few minutes... I mean really, who cares? And then past that you've given your little dissertations about your world views and slammed everyone else for theirs... I mean really RAZD, who cares? You live in world of objective reality that is somehow so disenfranchised from the rest of reality that you have even decided 1+1 does not equal 2 because nothing is perfect enough in your view.

Really RAZD, who cares, what is there to argue. It's amusing I must say, but prove you wrong? No, show you silly and half cracked perhaps, but no one will ever prove you wrong. there's nothing to prove wrong. you're in your own little world. No one else has ever experienced it.

Silly, yeah, wrong no, it's all a pretty personal belief system far as i can tell. Merging your odd beliefs to survive and do well in the reality the rest of us share is something you will have to deal with yourself, however. I truly don't believe anyone can help you with it.

You might ask God about it though.

Thank you SoSick for your valuable contribution.

A common name for this next species of tree, this time from Europe, is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes.

From "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating":


Note that sources of error are identified and accounted for. Crossdating is one method to check for errors. Another is to build two independent chronologies from the same species in two different locations. For an idea of the accuracy of the data and the amount of error involved we have this:

From "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP"


There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in (then) ~8,000 years, an error of 0.5%. Third, is that when one oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, now the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in ~7600 years, an error of 0.5%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and these initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating and including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.

From "The 12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak...d Paleoenvironment Reconstructions":


These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.

Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950, so this is really 10,435 years ago (in 2008).


Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.

And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

If what you are trying to say is that someone somewhere claims they have found samples of oak that is 10,000+ years old i think you must be being brainwashed.

cut wood simply doesn't last that long, unless of course they've been keeping it in some sort hermetically sealed chamber, which is highly unlikely. Humidity, drying, expansion, contraction, acid ph, termites, carpenter ants, most furniture falls apart after a dozen decades at most. Houses about the same. Great huge unhewn trees turn to mulch in much less time. Castles built of stone get rather decrepit after several hundred years. The big oak beams wither away, crack and split and the big old castle caves in upon itself. Unless there are numerous workers constantly refurbishing them.

If what you were saying is true, imagine the possibilities. We could build houses of this special wood and expect them to last virtually forever. But it hasn't happened has it? I'd say your carbon or whatever dater is working with a theory of wishful thinking more than anything else. The average lifespan of a healthy oak is 500-600 years at the very most. Where is the 10,000 year old equipment that supposedly cut the posts? Maybe they cut the posts by hand, with little stone knives? You should try that sometime and see how far you get in 24 hours. You mightwant to check your dates on the bronze age and iron age before drawing truly rational conclusions on this one.

And what historical documents? Sumeria is one of the oldest civilizations known to archeologists and cuniform has never been fully deciphered, that only takes us back to the 4th milllenium BC. There are no historical documents prior to that. Zilch, nada. I think you run across little ideas put out here by various people on the net RAZD, but your knowledge of history isn't well established enough to give you the clarity you need to decipher what you find.

So you've found some people working with certain ideas they think might be valuable at a certain university. Big deal, it doesn't mean they are correct, they are postulating. How you've suddenly come up with builders flourishing in Europe 4000 years before Sumeria existed is probably something the entire world would like to know.

Personally, I'd trash the idea as nonsense. Oak posts were not being used to build villages or whatever in Europe 4000 years before the Sumerian (most likely) invented the wheel, 4000 years before the Sumerians built cities of brick and used palm tree posts for roofing.

I think your quest for finding evidence to support your theories of evilution has left you more than just a little bit insane. God himself is much easier find. It's a much more rewarding quest also.

There are numerous examples of wood having been preserved for millennia, in the right kinds of conditions, typically an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. Even Otzi the Iceman, the world's oldest known mummy, was found with a wooden bow and arrows. There is no mystery here about how the wood was able to survive being frozen in a glacier.

Wooden objects from Ohalo II (23,000 cal BP), Jordan Valley, Israel


Accepting these facts does not have to mean you reject the existence of God, SoSick. Surely God would have intended for people to use their intelligence and directly engage with the evidence we find, rather than dismiss it, ignore it, or call it lies? Wherever the evidence may lead us, surely there can always be an underlying belief that God created it all?

honey, when you finally and truthfully are able to admit that the dates you 'accept' as the basis of your 'science' are terribly incorrect, then you will be able to begin a discussion.

Read the first two sentences of the bible and then ask yourself who is lying to who. don't ask me such obvious questions when you are so easily offended by truthful answers, because we've been down that road too many times already. Not everyone is as willing as you to accept the contradictions you propose. But, the ability to do that with a clear conscience speaks volumes of your perspective.

have a great new year btw.

early celebrating terrible hangover ummph.

The day I accept the literal interpretation of lines from someone's holy book over the overwhelming evidence of reality in front of my eyes is the day I bury my reason and sanity for good.

It's understandable. Most people would agree it's quite difficult to actually believe in something as ominous as God without having any real proof of him.

That's also why a lot of people have trouble accepting evolution. If it were a settled matter people would have stopped arguing a long time ago. Scientists included.

But you are a walking contradiction saying things like you just said above and then the next minute insisting that the belief in God and evolution can rationally coexist. There's a bit of a problem with what you call your sanity as it stands I'd say. Seems like you've got quite a tug of war going on with it already.

Of course I realize your next comment might include the 'who says your god is the only god' idea... but considering the context and the many different and numerous ways you have argued against the God of the bible and against biblical things like the flood, I 'd say that that comment is part of your contradiction problem too, because all this time you have never mentioned another god possibly being responsible for creation.

Pay attention... here you ask the question and propose a solution..[color:"orange"]
Accepting these facts does not have to mean you reject the existence of God, SoSick. Surely God would have intended for people to use their intelligence and directly engage with the evidence we find, rather than dismiss it, ignore it, or call it lies? Wherever the evidence may lead us, surely there can always be an underlying belief that God created it all?[/color]

and here you answer your own question and negate your proposed solution:[color:"orange"]
The day I accept the literal interpretation of lines from someone's holy book over the overwhelming evidence of reality in front of my eyes is the day I bury my reason and sanity for good.
[/color]

You are simply arguing with yourself all day Linda. The argument is irrational. Only you can put this to rest for yourself.

Why don't you simpy face the fact that you have decided to put your faith in erroneous science instead of putting your faith in a God that you do not know? At least then you might be able to cling to a little corner of sanity somewhere, if only in the fact that you can stop deceiving yourself about the matter and hopefully put it to rest.

checkmate btw.

pretty tight corner you locked yourself into there. you have to reinvent yourself after that one.

well, there is one option left on the table that you have not explored, and that is the possibilty that God is real. if he is real, like you heard when you were a little child, then he should answer when you call to him right?

I suggest you begin exploring the possibilty. throw away the texbooks and preconcieved ideas and simply seek. if you put as much heart and energy into it as your evolution search you will probably succeed in it. it's pretty obvious by now that that is the answer you need, Linda. months and months of searching for answers in evolution have left you between a rock and a hard place. But one moment in the the presence of the Lord will answer every question, really it will.

Thanks, SoSick for the research you put into this.
That is one way you can deal with the cognitive dissonance of having to deal with the evidence. Of course you are rejecting the evidence of reality when you do so.
Unfortunately for you, nature is not confined by what you believe, for it is not simply a matter of age, but environment.

There are actually millions of examples of wood and other organic debris that were preserved in sites that prevented rot and decay, a typical one is being submerged in peat bogs where the acid and lack of oxygen prevent microbes from breaking down cellulose. For example there are over a thousand peat bog mummies that have been found where human bodies have been preserved for hundreds of years:
Wood of course doesn't need to be tanned and naturally lasts longer than bodies.

We also see petrified wood, which lasted long enough for the slow chemical reactions to replace molecules of wood with those of minerals - something that does not occur with decay. This evidence shows that decay does not always occur, and it also tells us what conditions are needed for the prevention of decay. Those conditions match those where the oak samples were found.

Once samples are buried where decay does not occur, and thus cannot decay, they will be preserved until those conditions change. Once we know what the conditions are that preserve samples like this we can look for more, in order to piece together the evidence of the natural history of the world.
Again, the world is not limited by what you believe or what your opinion is, as the evidence of the first agricultural villages are that they date to 10,000 BCE and that humans had been building structures long before that.

But we are not talking about wood used to make buildings ...

... we are talking about wood preserved in bogs and the bottoms of anaerobic lakes where decay was prevented by lack of oxygen and acidic water. Wood in two different locations (Ireland and Germany) where there are enough samples of a species of oak that a dendrochronology can be constructed by matching the growth rings in the samples.
Of course this is just another way of dealing with cognitive dissonance - the evidence that contradicts your belief must be false and the people that deal with it must be insane - because the alternative is admitting to yourself that you are wrong.

My god is not there to comfort me, to make it easy for me, or coddle me in fantasy, but to show me the reality of the objective world - the created world. The message of evidence like this is multifaceted and repeated in many different ways and forms, and it all leads to one rational and logical conclusion: that the earth is old, very old, and that anyone that thinks otherwise is not understanding reality.

But we also have other evidence from these trees as well, evidence that shows that they cannot be misplaced younger trees in the dendrochronology. It is part of the correlations.

Denial of the evidence of reality is not faith, it is delusion.

Enjoy.

ps - you owe LindaLou an apology - she got the facts right (easy to do with a little research and a willingness to look for truth), and all you have are the logical fallacy arguments from incredulity and ignorance (and a hangover). And btw - just for form sake - your statements:

message 248378
Only hold if reason and sanity are mutually exclusive of any belief in god. If this is really your position, then I guess we know where you stand.

message 248387
Except that you haven't even found the chessboard yet, and your supposed corner has so many holes in it that you can see reality (if you look). You need to look at all the possibilities SoSick, if you are interested in reason and sanity anyway.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

actually my corner has zero holes in it. You are just brainwashed and a sore loser.

you didn't say enjoy at the end of that. good thing because I was going to ask for a refund. it's not enjoyable, just a lot of useless hot air. maybe you can get a job pumping gas too.

Thanks SoSick for your careful reading and erudite response.

Try looking before the "ps" (you do know what that is don't you?).

And yet I have only begun to set out the information, while you are busy digging foxholes and hiding from reality. Let's review where we are - let me know when we come to a point you made that is valid or one that you can refute:

• the "Methuselah Tree" with an estimated germination date of 2,832BCE,
• scientists count tree rings using both cut down specimens and living trees that have several cores taken,
• scientists have also learned how to determine when different kinds of errors can occur and how to correct for them in the data,
• Don Batten was demonstrated to be a liar, because he doesn't tell you the truth, the truth that he is able to identify every false ring in a remotely related tree growing in a totally different ecology and that is bred by the timber industry to grow fast,
• Don Batten's information actually demonstrates that dendrochronologies are valid because the sources of error can be identified (as he did) and the chronology corrected,
• the "Prometheus Tree" (aka WPN-114) has an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE,
• Bristlecone pines have an average 42 day growing season and have years so harsh that no rings are formed (thus resulting in an age that is too young if not corrected), rather than the kind of environment that produces false rings,
• the weather is cold and dry and the temperatures range from about 36°F (2°C) to -26° (-32°C) in the alpine zone where the Bristlecone pines grow,
• the tree rings correlate with a known (historical) volcanic eruption in 1,627 BCE, thus demonstrating that there are no significant errors to this point in the use of these tree rings,
• there are several living trees over 4,000 years old in addition to the two above,
• there are a few downed trees in the White Mountains that lived over 5,000 years before they fell,
• any dead wood would have floated away during any mountain topping flood event, even it the living trees survived that event, and thus
• all the dead trees can also be used to make a (pre flood) dendrochronology based on the correlations of years and climates in overlapping sections of trees of different ages,
• the dendrochronology for the Bristlecone pines extends to 7,000 BCE with these samples,
• a similar dendrochronology for Irish oaks and German oaks extends back to 7,197 BCE with cross dating (checks for errors),
• there was a total 37 year error between the Bristlecone pine and oak chronologies after 7,600 years, an error rate of only 0.5%, and finally,
• the chronology extends to 8,480 BCE with just these oaks.

Seeing as there has been no cogent argument against any of this evidence or any explanation that can cover all aspects and correlations between the data from different sites we can move on to the next piece of information:

From the "12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak and...d Paleoenvironment Reconstructions":
This means that the minimum age of the earth from this data is 12,468 years in 2008 (back to 10,461 BCE), well over any YEC model.

This is as far as tree rings can take us for now, and the next piece of evidence has to do with Carbon-14 production and decay.

Take off the blindfold and you'll see them.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

oh you did say enjoy, sorry I missed ha earlier.

I would like a refund please.

You know what RAZD, you are pretty full of yourself it obvious... all your little rules and all like the world should obey you... and i owe Linda what? Right, the world owes Linda too. I know that already too. forget it.

Listen dude, we all know your you think your time is precious but here's a dose of reality. I have about 1 minute for you a couple times a day and that's it.

go take a walk and find me some preserved wood. most of the stuff around my neck of the woods rots within two years of exposure lying dead on the ground. you can't even burn it anymore it's so rotten and buggy.

don't come crying evidence with two lousy chunks of crap in your hand. it proves nothing and the irish peat bogs are pretty famous for their rotten stench anyway. rotten stench aka rot aka peat. I was reading about peat mummies when you were still in grade school einstien.

btw einstien, send this line in to your dentist's office and they'll laugh you all the way to timbuktu.

[color:"orange"]... we are talking about wood preserved in bogs and the bottoms of anaerobic lakes where decay was prevented by lack of oxygen and acidic water.[/color]

that's exactly the environment that is going to cause your teeth to decay and crumble within the next 20 years. anaerobic bacteria, nasty stuff, some of the worst.

get yourself a coloring book and crayons for pete's sake.

your science stinks of brain rot.

Thanks SoSick for your in depth response,


I have to wonder what you learned from your reading SoSick, as those mummies had teeth (those that had heads) as well as skin and clothes and organs, and they were obviously from earlier times in history -- by hundreds of years -- and yet there was no decay, thus demonstrating that your opinion -- whatever information it is based on -- is false. Opinion is not reality SoSick.

Carbon-14 Levels

Furthermore, the ages of the tree-ring data are validated by the carbon-14 levels in the samples. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual ration of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the sample. This is like plotting the quantity measured (ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12) on a graph with a logarithmic scale.

The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two or more samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 (the three common isotopes) - will have the same levels of carbon-14 in the samples today, no matter how much that differs from the original amount.

No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact, for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time. Thus, when sample {A} is dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has ratio {Y} of carbon-14 to carbon-12, and when sample {B} is also dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it also has ratio {Y} of carbon-14 to carbon-12, the common ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 between the two samples validates the dendrochronological age ... simply because, growing in the same environment, they could not be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

Samples of the same age cannot have different ratios of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

This allows us to check for errors in the dendrochronology by comparing ratios of carbon-14 to carbon-12 at different ages from different tree chronologies.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857174.html


http://www.c14dating.com/int.html


http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable


This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 changes back to Nitrogen-14 by beta-minus decay:

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html


Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished, while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results in a measurable amount of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis, and those plants absorb carbon in the proportions of carbon-14 and carbon-12 existing in the atmosphere at the time (thus they have the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the atmosphere at the time the growth formed).

The level of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:

<img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/carbon14calibration.jpg">
(Image based on calibration curvefrom Wikipedia - Both images are in the public domain.)

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable


These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf


This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:

• If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as was proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
• The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.

Conclusions

The actual ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of any changes to the radioactive decay before, during, or afterwards.

Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

While it is possible for samples of slightly different ages to have the same carbon-14 content (due to the variation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere over time), it is not possible for samples to be the same age and have different carbon-14 content.

False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.

Sufficient false rings to make a 6,000 year old earth possible would show up in the carbon-14 data as a significant rise and change in slope of the carbon-14 curve that is not supported in any way by the data: if anything the data shows a flatter curve in the past.

False (and missing) tree-rings are readily identified by dendrochronologists due to their differences from real annual tree-rings, and this has already been done for the dendrochronologies presented: there are no massive numbers of false rings in any of the data.

Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis. This is highly unlikely to be done.

The logical conclusion is that this confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.

The correlation between tree ring age and the theoretical carbon-14 age also validates the carbon-14 dating method in general and improves it by calibrating it to actual carbon-14 environments in times past.

Minimum age of the earth >12,405 years based on this data.

The tree-ring data has been confirmed\validated by the carbon-14 data, not only do the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios correlate between the three different tree chronologies for the lengths of their records, but the "14-C age" curve shows no scattering of data from the different sets of data that would be caused by disagreement between the chronologies, no sudden changes in slope that would be caused by false or missed tree rings, nor any variation from predicted values significant enough to fall outside expected changes in carbon-14 levels that would indicate any change in radioactivity and decay rates during this record.

In other words, not one effect usually proposed by creationists regarding tree-ring validity, carbon-14 dating or radioactive decay is visible in the data when it is correlated.

And we haven't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Well, SoSick, I've missed your bright cheery comments, so I thought I would add some more to this thread.

You are, of course, right about what happens most of the time, but you are not right about what happens all of the time. The normal decay of organic objects is of course why there are so few fossils in the geological record compared to the likely populations of organisms alive at any one time.

You can do a comparison of the number of fossils preserved in the La Brea tar pits to the fossils preserved in sedimentary deposits around the La Brea tar pits. The same populations of animals lived in the area, yet the number in the pits is thousands times more than in the sedimentary deposits.

There are many instances where items are preserved much longer than would otherwise be expected. Tar pits and acidic peat bogs are two well known examples. Instances of rapid burial also have preserved fossils, some even with skin and organs. To deny preservation of such fossils is to deny reality.

And yet you have not been able to show that any of it is wrong. Rather telling that lack of any answer from you, from Russ, from any of the creationists.

Here is another correlation with the tree rings that will bring our discussion of dendrochronology to a termination point, a foundation to build on, where we can move on to other evidence.

This has to do with the sunspot cycle, the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is linked to the cosmic ray activity of the sun which is linked to the sunspot cycle.

In RAZD Message 248525 of this thread we saw that cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms produced carbon-14. Cosmic rays are produced by the sun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays


<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Solar_cycle.gif">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_cycle.gif

The picture is of the variation of cosmic rays with time. Notice that the peaks are numbered, with peak 1 being at ~1761 and peak 23 being at ~2003, 22 peaks in 242 years is an 11 year cycle. This cycle also affects climate.

We also see this same pattern of maximums and minimums in the carbon-14 data from the tree rings -- as would be expected with the trees obtaining their carbon from the atmosphere -- and in the thickness of the rings -- which reflects the changes in climate from the solar activity. We can detect this same cycle in ancient wood as well as young wood. But the kicker is that the period of the cycle is not always the same -- it varies from 9 to 12 years with an 11 year average -- but the data for the tree rings (thickness=climate cycle) and the data for the carbon-14 levels (cosmic ray cycle) show the same cycles. When one is 9 years, the other is 9 years, and when one is 12 years, the other is 12 years.

This is an independent correlation locked away in each tree ring, a correlation independent of tree ring count and carbon-14 age.

Finally, I leave you with this article from quote from "Creation Research" ... Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year, (it's the second abstract):


That's a creationist source saying that there were no multiple ring growths counted in the dendrochronologies, that the age for the tree rings adds up to over 10,000 years.

Some people admit the facts that the evidence of objective reality shows.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Linda said...

[color:"magenta"]"There are numerous examples of wood having been preserved for millennia, in the right kinds of conditions, typically an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment."[/color]

Honestly, there are some vast time-based assumptions in this belief. If we're going to be intellectually honest, we have to admit that.

Nevertheless, I have been honest about not being a young earth creationist (yec, as you call us), yet, I must admit, there is some very interesting evidence in that direction.

The subject seems currently unexplainable for science.

I personally lean toward (but not dogmatically) the gap theory, that is, that there is a vast amount of time that passed between the first and second sentences of Genesis. It seems that God said that He renewed the Earth, at least that what Bullinger seems to say, and I think He's got a point. The young Earth evidence may be remnants of this renewal and the old Earth evidence may be left from the original "big-bang" creation.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting study and I see some validity on both sides of the fence.



"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.


"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."

—Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

Thanks Russ, your input is always appreciated.

Not really. We look at the evidence of the peat mummies and we can KNOW that they were preserved long after they would otherwise have decayed by their clothes and artifacts. To assume this also applies to wood, which is harder to decay than flesh is nothing but looking at reality, especially when we see cloth, wood, fiber, clothes on the mummies. Whatever else these mummies show, they absolutely falsify the idea that wood cannot be preserved in peat bogs for a long time.

Only when you ignore the evidence that is available.

Have I called you a YEC? Or do I talk about YEC positions and let people put the shoe on to see if it fits? Being a GAP or OEC (old earth creationist) is fine - everyone is welcome to their beliefs, truth is a different matter (there is only one).

There is also always evidence FOR any theory. You can even find evidence FOR a flat earth - the question is what you do about contradictory evidence. Old things falsify a YEC model of the universe\earth, and they have to explain how that evidence has the appearance of age -- the evidence of the tree rings and the correlations that have been presented so far.

Young things do not falsify an old earth (whether OEC or geological), as they can be recently produced in an old earth. Volcanic eruptions do this regularly.

Then you may be interested in some of the evidence to come and how they correlate.

Your two quotes involve evolution and not anything to do with this thread. They are irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion, and I would appreciate less clutter with extraneous information that can lead others to go off topic. Thanks.

Enjoy.

ps - sorry for the false accusation on the other thread.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

No argument here, but this is certainly a vastly different statement than the original that I responded to.




Especially today, when you do not know what is evidence and what is piltdown (a fraud).

The sheer amount of peer-reviewed fraud (even just that which we can be aware of) in the disciplines I study is mind boggling. There is an agenda at every door and it is an affront to science but good for quarterly corporate graphs.

[color:"brown"]"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."[/color]

—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. (emphasis mine)




You're not shy about asking for what you want, are you?

Loosen up.




Forgetaboutit.




[color:"brown"]"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."[/color]

—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.


[color:"brown"]"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "[/color]

—Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

Thank you Russ for your understanding.

What linda said that you responded to was:

A millennium is 1,000 years. The evidence from the peat bogs include some mummies that date to 300 CE by comparison with clothes and artifacts against history. That is 1.7 millennium. Once artifacts have reached this kind of age without showing any decay or deterioration there is no reason to presume that they cannot last for more millenia as long as the conditions of preservation prevail.

People should be skeptical, especially of any new claims. Some people were skeptical of piltdown from the start, others became skeptical when it began to be contradicted by other evidence. It was actually a scientific analysis that finally showed it was a construct (like the chinese fake bird).

I have faith in the eventual honesty of science to uncover frauds and deceptions, although it may take a generation.

Thanks.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

All bog mummies show varying amounts of decay. They are simply in a slower state of decay than a body buried in dry earth eaten by worms etc. Most bog bodies are found already half rotted away, some are mere bones.

Archeologists are mostly guessing at the ages of petrified bodies. Clothing and minimal artifacts didn't make any great enough changes in short spans of time to actually determine how old any particular body is in most cases. Most of them are found wearing plain peasant dress (if cloth parts are found) or skins that would have been typical anywhere from 500 BC to 500-1500 AD or even later.

Too bad dinosaurs didn't wear clothes is all I can say. Bog bodies do present proof that petrification is possible in short spans of time, relatively speaking. Some may actually only be a couple or a few hundred years old, which may very well be the case of the more intact bodies.

None have been found that archeologists have pinned dates of 10,000 years on. Nor have petrified animals been found within the bogs of that age leading one to reason that either the bogs themselves did not exist for that length of time, there was no civilization or other animal life near them for that length of time, or anything that old within them has already reached a state of compression beyond recognition.

The peat bogs and everything within them are in a process of compression, the same as coal.

Thank you again SoSick for your opinion.

And some of the bodies are dated to times BCE.

Nor does this fact affect the accuracy of the tree ring counts and the minimum age of the earth that they provide evidence for. Nor are tree rings the only source of annual measurements of age that we have evidence of in the world of reality.

Lake Suigetsu Varves

Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a chronology extending over a period of 29,100 years. They were also able to measure and match the "C-14 age" of samples taken with the core to the ages and Carbon-14 levels documented for the tree ring data for an overlap period starting 8,830 years ago. This is a "floating" chronology, as it does not have accurate data on the present due to the coring technology and the characteristics of the recent formed bottom (silty clay) before it gets compacted by time and later depositions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

If the above link is not accessible try http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html (1)

Note that annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr B.P if correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and that this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, with some assumptions made below the 37,930 cal yr BP level. As the data below this 37,930 cal yr BP level does not use annual varve layers but an estimated rate of sedimentation, we cannot use it for our minimum annual layer counts other than to say that the earth is older than the annual varves show. Again we can be minimalist: if we take 2,000 years as the error in the data at maximum depth counted, then either of these two scenarios can apply:

• This chronology is totally independent of the one from the tree-ring data in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 12,326 + 29,100 +/- 2,000 = 39,436 years old, OR
• These chronologies overlap as determined by matching the "C-14 age" curves, and the minimum age of the earth is 37,930 +/- 2,000 = 35,930 years BP = 35,987 years old in 2007.

Minimum age of the earth = 35,987 years based on this data.

Note that the climatological information from the varves matches that from dendrochronology for the period of overlap, including the Younger Dryas. Note further that this extends annual chronological dating to the archaeological dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. We have verified a chronological age for these artifacts, and we have hardly begun to get into the age of Homo sapiens, the hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth.

Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating (albeit making some assumptions for before 37,930 years BP).

Carbon-14 Correlations to Lake Varves

We discussed the calibration curves for Carbon-14 above, using them to show the Carbon-14 environment and making a clear distinction between the levels of Carbon-14 being measured and the age determined by calculation from the measured levels of Carbon-14 in the rings. We also noted that these calibration curves have been extended by other later work.

In the case of the Lake Suigetsu Lake Varves they present a calibration curve as well, and we can use this to represent the Carbon-14 environment in the same way we did for the tree-rings - as an indicator of what the levels of Carbon-14 were when the organic samples were alive and growing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles and their match to the green tree-ring data. Additionally we need to look at the number of cores involved with the data for a measure of their replication of data.
If the above link is not accessible try http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html (1)

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles and their match to the green tree-ring data. Additionally we need to look at the number of cores involved with the data for a measure of their replication of data. This graph shows the previous dendrochronology calibration curve, the Lake Suigetsu data and some other data from marine corals. On this graph we have the Carbon-14 levels (represented as "Radiocarbon Age") shown for multiple cores from 8830 to ~20,000 years on the horizontal time scale, and data (I count ~50 samples) from ~20,000 to 37,930 years from one core correlated with counted varve layers, and then eight more organic samples where the horizontal age datum is assumed from sediment thickness (and which are not included in discussion here). This means that most of the 250 samples occurred in the area of most reliability - where there were multiple cores.

Again we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the amount of Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the leaves, twigs and wings were formed.

What are those amounts? The age calculation is based on the exponential decay curve for a radioactive element with a half-life of 5730 years:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable (2)

t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t1/2

where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.

t = {ln (Nf/No)/-0.69315} x 5730 = -8267 x ln (Nf/No)

Where No is the original level of the C-14 isotope in the sample (when it was alive and growing and absorbing atmospheric C-14), and Nf is the amount remaining. The value for No today is ~0.00000000010% of total organic carbon and Nf is smaller depending on how much time has passed.

Exponential curves look like this:
. . . . <img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/carbon14decaycurve.jpg">

We can calculate (Nf/No) ratios for a number of decay ages and use those with the horizontal time frames to show what the approximate ratios would have been (we could refine those by multiplying by the ratio between the data point elevations and the 1:1 correlation line if we want to get more accurate numbers):

(Nf/No) = e^(t/-8267)

Age (yrs BP) Ratio (Nf/No)
[color:"white"].[/color]5,730 . . . . . . 0.5000 (= 1 half life)
[color:"white"].[/color]8,000 . . . . . . 0.3799
[color:"white"].[/color]8,500 . . . . . . 0.3576
[color:"white"].[/color][color:"red"]8,830 . . . . . . 0.3436[/color]
[color:"white"].[/color]9,000 . . . . . . 0.3366
[color:"white"].[/color]9,500 . . . . . . 0.3169
10,000 . . . . . . 0.2983
10,500 . . . . . . 0.2808
11,000 . . . . . . 0.2643
11,460 . . . . . . 0.2500 (= 2 half lives)
11,500 . . . . . . 0.2488
12,000 . . . . . . 0.2342
[color:"red"]12,326 . . . . . . 0.2251[/color]
12,500 . . . . . . 0.2204
13,000 . . . . . . 0.2075
13,500 . . . . . . 0.1953
14,000 . . . . . . 0.1839
14,500 . . . . . . 0.1731
15,000 . . . . . . 0.1629
15,500 . . . . . . 0.1534
16,000 . . . . . . 0.1444
16,500 . . . . . . 0.1359
17,000 . . . . . . 0.1279
17,190 . . . . . . 0.1250 (= 3 half lives)

(A quick look at data point elevation to 1:1 correlation line ratios for this period on the tree-ring calibration curve above shows this ratio to be fairly constant at ~90%, with variations that are ~+/-2% - not enough to make a significant impact on the actual amount of C-14 that we can infer was actually measured.)

These ratios apply to both the tree-ring data and the Lake Suigetsu varve data. This means that to match the levels of C-14 between the two in order to see how they correlate with each other we are matching curves for slopes and general curvature, with the tree-ring data from 0 yr BP to 12,326 yr BP and the varve data from 8,830 yr BP to 17,190 yr BP and beyond. The ends of this overlap period (8,830 yr BP to 12,326 yr BP) are shown in red in the table above, where the measurable C-14 should be 34% to 22% of the original amounts, well within robust detection levels.

Possible sources of error involve C-14 from other than atmospheric sources (use of already aged carbon would mean that there was less C-14 in the original sample, and C-14 made by radioactive interaction in the ground would mean there was more C-14 in the measured sample). There were no radioactive elements in the sediments to artificially raise the measured sample amounts, and in both the tree-ring data and the varve fossil data the organic samples involve atmospheric C-14.

Loss of carbon from the samples by leaching in the lake or other similar processes would not preferentially leach one isotope in favor of the other as they are a purely chemical reaction. This would reduce the amount of both C-14 and C-12 in the samples in proportion to the numbers of atoms of each in the sample, and thus not affect the ratio of C-14 to C-12.

Conclusions

With the continual loss of C-14 with time due to radioactive decay, there is only one period where both the tree-rings and the lake varve fossils will have similar levels of remaining C-14 if they were living, growing and absorbing C-14 from the atmosphere at the same time.

Both sets of data use samples from trees, and thus should be obtaining their original levels of C-14 from the atmosphere.

Samples that get carbon-14 only from the same source while living (and that have not been contaminated by other carbon-14 since then) cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

Any mechanism that would not have C-14 decay in the distant past would not match the decay curve shape and this would show up on the calibration curve as a sharply rising line.

Any mechanism that would produce lower C-14 levels in the distant past would not match the decay curve at the point of overlap - it would be too low.

Anyone wanting to invalidate this link between tree-ring age and lake varve age will need to provide a mechanism to produce higher C-14 levels at some point in the distant past for the varves, which then decay down to the tree-ring levels over longer periods of time -- and this would mean that the lake varves are even older than listed.

Because actual amount of C-14 in the lake varves and the tree-ring samples comes from the same source - the atmosphere at the time that each sample was living, growing and absorbing C-14 from the atmosphere - matching the actual C-14 levels between them will provide an accurate estimate of age for the start of the varve floating chronology - objects that are the same age cannot have different C-14 levels because they grew in the same "C-14 environment".

Anyone wanting to invalidate this link will need to provide a mechanism to produce false amounts of C-14 in one system that doesn't happen in the other. This has not been observed.

Anyone wanting to invalidate the lake varves as being annual varves will need to provide a mechanism that produces a continual change in the decay of C-14 so that the curve can be compressed in the horizontal scale and match the curvature of the 5730 half-life curve. This has not been observed.

The logical conclusion is that this Carbon-14 data (the actual amount of C-14, not the calculated age) confirms the lake varve chronological age.

Minimum age of the earth > 35,930 years based on this data.

Enjoy.

References:
(1) Anonymous "Lake Varves" Genesis Research. updated 28 Oct 1998. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html
(2) Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable
(3) Kitagawa, H., et al., "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production" Science 279, 1187 (1998); DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1187
accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

There are a lot of things that can contribute error to carbon dating.

I saw a show on the weather channel or someplace just last week for instance that claims there was 4 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when the earth was young compared to today, for instance.

So, scientists themselves have quite a few major diagreements here it seems. All your data is very impressive... to someone i guess. But unfortunately, not to everyone. I can run a spreadsheet too, with my own calculations based on my own consistencies or lack thereof.. But I won't waste your time. God forbid I waste mine with it.

That's either a depressingly defeatist attitude or a self-serving attempt to deny so much as even the possibility that what RAZD is saying may be true.

If it's the latter then there's no point continuing to enter the debate. If it's the former, well, that argument could be applied to anything and everything, leaving us with nothing left to do but throw are arms up in the air and say "There's now way anything in the world can be proved so let's just give up and not bother".

I can certainly understand the confusion of trying to draw conclusions to any mystery - such as an illness, for example - when there are so many factors that we quickly become entangled in a tumultuous web of contradicting facts amidst numerous theories. But I would never advocate that we as humans simply throw are arms up and say there are too many variables to even try drawing a conclusion and that we're all better off simply trusting our emotions and desires. On the contrary, I applaud people for delving into the mass of confusion in attempt to solve the riddles of the universe, and frankly I think RAZD has more of a head start in that endeavor than any other poster in this discussion thus far.

People need to remember that evolution is not a religion, nor is it a belief that anyone would possibly want to desperately cling to in order to make them feel they have hope and salvation. Even if it were disproved tomorrow, those who accept evolution do so out of a desire to uncover truths and find facts - so if they're wrong, all that means is they misinterpreted the data, not that they were led by emotion. I see a lot of accusion from the creationist faction here against evolutionists by citing that they're just clinging onto their beliefs out of desire. This is called transference in the psyhological world - that is, telling other people what you've been told about yourself your entire life and thereby laying the guilt on someone else's shoulders (an example here would be if a lazy person who is routinely reminded of this fault started running around yelling at the world and saying they're all lazy). So it is the religious (myself among them) who cling to their ideals for the purpose of hope. Nobody is stubbornly insisting that evolution is a fact because they feel more hopeful about life/existence from it! They're simply trying to dig for answers and I'm not about to try and stop such a noble pursuit as this.

Pretty defeatist attitude you've got, I'd say, ignoring scientific evidence that there was 4 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere years ago then there is now just to make your numbers and side look good.

Let's all pretend the sky is falling too. We'll call it global warming and you can pay to fix what the earth has been known to do naturally all on it's own all by itself.

And anyway, saying God doesn't exist because you have never bothered seeking him is the same as hiding your head in the sand for protection when a hurricane is on the way. It's hardly a non-defeatist attitude. Using it as an excuse for anything, including evolution, is more ignorant than the claims of ignorance any evolutionist ever made about creationism. Claiming to know something about (God) anything you have never bothered studying or seeking the truth about is the absolute epitomy of ignorance.

If everyone went around proclaiming this or that simply because they did or did not believe something else, and even refused to research it... well science itself would cease to exist if everyone used the model that evolution provides as a means of proclaiming itself a science since it requires complete ignorance of such a vast array of factual science and factual matters of faith, and even faithless, undeniable matters of spirituality.

Evolution and global warming.. they are both part of the same set of lies and blatant ignoring of fatual science which tell us the earth was a lot warmer once, there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. They are both tied together, global warming as it's being pushed, as being mostly created as an unnatural occurrence created by manmade pollution, cannot even exist without the lies that evolution has proliferated. And the extensive earth ages that carbon dating offers cannot likewise exist while acknowledging the fact that CO2 levels change drastically throughout history and even in isolated places due to natural events. Both of these things hinge on what we believe about CO2.

The earth is not static!!

I even saw this item in the news the other day... Senator John Kerry proclaims the tornados in the midwest a few days ago are the result of global warming.

the problem with his proclamation is... all the meteorologists say things like that are caused by the ocean currents cooling, not warming. and it's a normal cycle. And I'm real sure it was mentioned as news where I read it to make John Kerry look like a moron because it's happening right now, ocean currents are cooling, not warming. It's why we have had names for things like El Nino for hundreds of years. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pollution you car generates, which still is not a good thing, but all the pollution man can make doesn't even come close to what periods of excessive sunspot activity and other things way beyond our control can do cause changes to our climate on earth. And that only takes into consideration the things we think we know about.

RAZD's carbon data info is about impressive as someone going to Mississippi river and measuring it's width so he can build a house on the edge of it. the measurements will mean nothing next year when it floods and changes it's course a bit and his house washes away. Personally, i think RAZD's calculations are a poor investment and I have no desire to share John Kerry's position on this one with RAZD.

Thank you SoSick for your contribution.

The problem for you is that I am not using carbon dating.

Whether the rate of decay has (miraculously) changed in the past, or whether there were concentrations that were 3x's todays concentration is irrelevant to the central point:

• Items that grew at the same time, using the atmosphere as a source of carbon, will have the same proportion of C14/C12.
  or
• Items that grew at the same time, using the atmosphere as a source of carbon, cannot have different proportions of C14/C12.

It's that simple.

Thus when I count to 10,000 years ago in one set of tree rings, or lake varves or whatever, and test a sample in that layer for the ratio of C14/C12, and compare that to a similar sample from another set of annual layers where I count up to 10,000 years ago, they will either be the same ratio of C14/C12 or at least one of the two time scales is wrong. So far -- in all this data -- such a state of discord has not occurred.

Instead, time and again the ratios are the same, year after year, layer after layer.

[qs]I saw a show on the weather channel or someplace just last week for instance that claims there was 4 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when the earth was young compared to today, for instance.[/qs]Gosh, now there's a certified source of scientific information!

The sad (for you) fact is that the level of CO2 increasing or decreasing has little impact on the proportion of C14 to C12, as both of them combine with oxygen to form Carbon Dioxide. Having 4x's the amount of C12 and 4x's the amount of C14 does not change the ratio of C14/C12.

Yet the fact that the earth is very old does not happen to be one of them.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

If you are not using carbon dating you should probably stop referring to C14,



makes sense. especially if they grew at the same time. I really had to think hard about that one. I think you forgot to mention though... in the same place.

Did you know that trees grow bigger faster in Central Park than they do central rural missouri? Do you know why?

The weather channel actually has some pretty informative shows. Some very respected meteorologists chiming in too. I realize you are smarter than all of them though.

I found this in the news, a mumified body, part skeletal remains, part mummy, they estimate the guy was in the tub for only seven years.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080212/D8UOPUQG0.html

Thanks for the help SoSick

Why? The existing level of carbon-14 in samples is a physical fact, part of the evidence of reality. Whether you understand carbon dating or not, you should be able to understand that different samples have different amounts of C-14, and that because C-14 decays (whatever the rate of decay is or has been) that there is less of it in old samples than in fresh ones.

The fact remains that there is a correlation between the ages of the tree rings and the ratios of C-14 to C-12 and that the same correlation occurs in all the different tree ring chronologies, and that it is seen again in the samples from the Lake Suigetsu varves.

Given that the amount of C-14/C-12 is different at different ages for the samples, how can that correlation occur at the same level and age?

Actually what you want is them all getting carbon from the same source -- in this case from the atmosphere. This is called a "reservoir" where the level of C-14 to C-12 is the same throughout the reservoir, but different reservoirs can have different proportions.

When we are talking about trees growing on the peaks of the Sierra Nevadas and in Ireland and in Germany we are talking about trees that all get their carbon from the same source - the atmosphere.

Probably higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm sure. I'm also sure that it is not a scientific journal and that a degree in meteorology does not make you an expert on everything.

I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm sure they know some things I don't.

Which just disproves your comments about death and decay, again.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

You just said in your previous post that you are not using carbon dating. so why do you keep referring to C14 and carbon decay rates? If that is not carbon dating, or a form of it, what is it? that is the basis of carbon dating according to any textbook defintiion.

At any rate...

i really don't know about C14/C12 correlations but if they exist they exist, i dont see an issue with it.

the atmosphere, like earth and it's overall climate is not static. I wouldn't presume that the atmosphere in one place is going to give you the same exact CO2 reading as any other place on any given day. For instance, ther is more oxygen in the atmosphere at sea level, and less in mountains. There is more CO2 in parts of yellowstone park than there is in Jackson Hole wyoming, on any given same day. there is more CO2 and other acids in the air near volcanic activity. there is more CO2 in manhattan than there is in the amazon rainforest. etc etc.

meteorology is actually a science. They study the earth, atmospheric and oceanic currents, stuff like that and stuff related to that. You would find it quite interesting and a valuable asset to your knowledge base, which often lacks real tappable data evident today.

i guess depending on how saturated an item became with carbon during it's lifetime, the dates could vary widely and cause quite a number of distortions using a static dating method such as you are attempting to apply. even nutrients in the soil could contribute to saturation ability and likewise the abilty to lose it or retain it in a set amount of time. certain things that bind to carbon retain carbon longer. heat also affects carbon and other mineral retention. acids or highly akaline soils or waters play a role... likewise moisture from the atmosphere. there are truly an enormous amount of variables to offset an attempt at dating anything with static system that assumes invariable constants for something like carbon. you could take two pieces of charcoal from the same bag that you buy at the store... store one piece inside and put the other piece 15 feet away outside and in a few months time the one that is outside will have less carbon that the one protected from sun, heat and acid rain. you could do the same thing with a carrot. and if you base all your measurements on a new carrot the one you put outside a few months ago will appear measurably older. it'll look that way too. if it gets buried by dirt or it rains a lot that season that will also affect your measurement. etc etc etc so many possibilities.

Actually, the mummified body in the tub proves my point that mumification and petrification do not take hundreds or thousands of years to accomplish, just as i originally mentioned to you and repeatedly reiterated to linda who seems to think that if something is petrified it must be millions of years old. proves my point quite blatantly matter of fact. I hope we can stop arguing about it now. My honest opinion about the bog bodies is that some of them are quite young but no one wants to open murder or suicide investigations for things that are a few generations old. Throwing a dead body into a shallow mucky body of water and covering it with leaves and sticks happens today just like it did a thousand years ago. it settles into the mucky swamp, never floats up and never gets found till someone comes digging around when it's drier.

Annual Layers of Ice

Tree-rings and lake varves are not the only system that build annual layers that can be measured and counted. Snow and ice also follow annual patterns in their formation and deposition that allow a number of ways to determine the annual layers.

To introduce the basic methods we will start with a fairly simple but dramatic set of annual ice layers:

The Quelccaya Ice Cap
This information comes from an on-line slide show:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index20.htm (3)

Note that they are talking about correlating layers with climate information provided by dO-18. We'll also come across this in other measurement systems. This is the proportion of a "heavy" isotope of oxygen in the atmosphere (O-16 is "normal" weight oxygen)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16 (1)
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-18 (2)

While this series of layers only date back to ~500AD they are important for a couple of reasons: they show visible layers, and they allow calibration of the oxygen isotope ratio (dO-18) as a measure of layers and of climate. These layers also show a period of sever weather that is known from history (the Little Ice Age) and the effects of a volcanic eruption nearby that occurred in 1600 AD. These results can then be applied to other ice cores.

The Dunde Ice Cap
Continuing from the same slide show:

The same kind of alternating layers of dust and snow as at Quelccaya, the same kind of climate information from the oxygen isotope ratio (dO-18), data that matches known climate markers, including the last ice age, data that also showed up in Lake Suigetsu climate information. Research on the Dunde Ice Cores is continuing, including analysis of the dust and pollen as markers not just of climate but of environment.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/135 (5)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu102k4348572506/ (6)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation (4)

Thus we see evidence of the end of the last glaciation period in the dust and pollen in the layers of ice from the Dunde Ice Cap in addition to the evidence of the dO-18 ratios. Data that also makes the concept of a world wide flood (WWF) within this period difficult, as the dust every year is of the same type and the thickness of ice and dust layers are the same from year to year indicating that the ice cap has not changed locations nor floated on water at any time in its history.

These climate changes locked in the ice layers are at the same distribution as the climate changes locked in the varves of Lake Suigetsu, they correlate because they are both annual systems.

Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data.

And this is but the tip of the iceberg.

Enjoy.

References
(1) Anonymous "Oxygen-16" Wikipedia. updated 7 Dec 2006. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16
(2) Anonymous "Oxygen-18" Wikipedia. updated 7 Dec 2006. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-18
(3) Anonymous "Paleo Slide Set: Low Latitude Ice Cores: High Resolution Records of Climatic Change and Variability in the Tropics and Subtropics" NOAA Paleoclimatology. updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index20.htm
(4) Anonymous "Wisconsin glaciation" Wikipedia. updated 15 Jan 2007. accessed 19 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
(5) Kam-biu Liu, et al, "A pollen record of Holocene climatic changes from the Dunde ice cap, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau" Geology; February 1998; v. 26; no. 2; p. 135-138 accessed 19 Jan 2007 from http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/135
(6) Thompson, Lonnie G., "Wisconsin/Würm glacial stage ice in the subtropical dunde ice cap, China" GeoJournal Vol 17, No 4 Dec 1988 DOI 10.1007/BF00209440 P517-523, SpringerLink Date 20 Oct 2004 accessed 19 Jan 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu102k4348572506/
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Brazen & bold, evolutionists continue to interpret ice layers as an "annual" phenomena, although there is pretty clear evidence they are no such thing.
<img src="http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/nose-art.jpg">
The Glacier Girl is one of a group of six P38's and two B-17's known as the "Lost Squadron". These planes ran low on fuel and ditched in Greenland in 1942. She is the only bird recovered thus far, and has been restored. It's not easy to recover these aircraft, due to the build-up of ice.
<img src="http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/ancien5.jpg">
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html reports
AiG has a a couple of short pages on the story
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/plane.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp

I think a little common sense goes a long ways when considering assumptions that marks of a given type are "annual" phenomenon. It should first be established that the marks are indeed the result of years passing - not something that may or may not be annual.

More on the Glacier Girl P-38
Kent Hovind does some math and calculates
One can think of all sorts of fun tricks to play. Take a simple hatchet or piece of pottery or bone to Antarctica & drop it. Return 50 years later & give evolutionists fits!

But as my second link explains, the ice data has become heavily politicized in support of "global warming". Don't expect anyone to give up pushing this misinterpretation any time soon. I have some suspicions that global warming may be half legit (we could still be emerging from an ice age), but cases like this don't inspire confidence in the data - quite the opposite.

I think the main thing to keep in mind here is that this claim was made by creationists who were hoping to invalidate something called the GISP2 ice core from Greenland, which shows 110,000 annual layers. Snow accumulates in the area of southern Greenland, where the planes were found, at a depth of 7 feet per year, while it accumulates one foot per year where the ice core was drilled. What's more, Kent Hovind is apparently not quite clear about the meaning of the "layers" answer he got.

This article by David Seely, The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global, addresses all the points you raised and some additional ones. It explains several methods that are used for dating ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica (which presumably you understand is the one of the driest places on earth and therefore where annual layers are very thin). It also explains the details of the claims of a couple of creationists and the errors they have made. It's quite a comprehensive discussion of the subject and yes, it discusses the planes too and explains the likely reasons why they were buried so deeply.

Do you cross-check the things you read on AiG? When I research a subject I try to get as much information from different sources as I can. Believe it or not, Talk Origins is never the last word for me. I want to find out what other people are saying and what the general scientific consensus seems to be. I highly recommend it as a truth-finding methodology.

Hello CTD, nice to see you.

You seemed to miss something: What does you post have to do with the Quelccaya ice cap or the Dundee Ice cap? This old PRATT from greenland doesn't address the snowfall in other areas of the world, and it has already been done to death.

How did they know to drill that deep? Because the thickness of the annual layers there was so deep. Annual layers have characteristics that are different from just another snow storm. Whether the snow is 5" or 15 feet those annual characteristics will tell you which are annual markers and which are just due to snow storms.

It really is a pity that all creationists can come up with for arguments are the same old tired PRATTS that have been around for years. Sad.

Scientists look at the evidence that shows annual deposits, which -- if you actually read the post above -- differ from local to local (the ones in S.America were .75 meters thick) and we haven't even gotten to Greenland yet.

Now -- question of the day -- can you deal with the evidence? I doubt it. For instance: why do the climate changes noted in the ice match exactly the climate markers from the varves in Lake Suigetsu for the same layers?

How do you explain the correlation? Layer by layer by layer. Your greenland plane doesn't even begin to address that issue, and until you can explain the correlations - layer by layer by layer - you don't have an argument left worth wasting bandwidth to post.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Cognitive Dissonance? Does that apply here? From p 258, (top right paragraph) did you catch the part where your evodunce says

Several lines within the space of a few inches are annual layers! How old indeed must these aircraft be! They were buried 263 feet deep. He goes on to sayBut he never reconciles the 7 feet/year with several actual annual layers occurring within a few inches. I guess in his mind there's no need.

He's not finished. The occurrence of several actual annual layers - not just "melt layers" - was found near the surface. He says One wonders if Hovind's figure might not be a tad low for the evoage of these aircraft.

Reading the article wasn't a total waste of time. Led me to Oard's fine article on the Greenland ice interpretations.

I also discovered how overrated the "correlations" are. ( from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/5161/948 ) 85% sounds impressive, but 30% is rather the opposite. And getting discrepancies in the amount of sulfur raises questions also.
Good to have your word on that. Other evidence is generally lacking.

A plug for the consensus? And on a politicized global warming-related topic, even. If one values truth, this would seem to be a hazardous attitude.

Well now, if it's "already been done to death", how is it you don't know they had to use sophisticated equipment in order to locate the aircraft? The readings told them how deep they'd have to dig, as I understand it.

See above for how evolutionists count "actual annual layers".
It's really a pity that anyone at all continues to cling desperately to uniformitarianism, given its dismal track record. Coal, opals, oil, flowstone - all have been demonstrated to be capable of forming in far, far shorter amounts of time than previously speculated. And that's just off the top of my head.

I decline to debunk your "varves" just now. I'm confident folks know how to use google, and my time-wasting quota's been spent reading LindaLou's quack.

From what I see, the evobunk's not worth much time - surely not worth all the money that's being spent just to add an obviously flawed argument to the global warming arsenal.

pretty much, considering all the dust storms in tibet and wild monsoon seasons sweeping up from India, really I have no idea how they claim to compare ice from that part of the world to a comparatively quiet plateau in Peru. china is famous for it's dust storms, i even saw a photo of a real bad one that happened just a couple months ago, the photo was from Beijing I think.

one also has to wonder how all the ice in all these glaciers has been around in all those places for tens of thousands of years fitting so well into the pre-desired data certain researchers are looking for, and yet according to the US Geological Survey, not a single glacier in Alaska contains ice that is more than 100 years old.

3. Today's glaciers are leftovers from the ice age … and … Glacier ice is "really old."

Sort-of and no - we must distinguish between glaciers and the ice in glaciers. Like the difference between rivers and the water in rivers: it takes a few weeks for water to travel the full length of the Mississippi river; however there has been a Mississippi River for thousands of years. Likewise, glaciers have existed in the mountains ever since the ice age, but glacier flow moves the snow and ice through the entire length of the glacier in 100 years or less. So, most of the glacier ice in Alaska is less than 100 years old! Therefore, most of the glacier ice is not ice-age leftovers.

http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/FAQ.htm

and tibetan glaciers don't even reveal any sign of radiation from WWll. They haven't grown? Maybe, maybe not, doubtful even, maybe they just flow quickly.

New Tibetan Ice Cores Missing A-bomb Blast Markers; Suggest Himalayan Ice Fields Haven't Grown In Last 50 Years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211232938.htm

yet, some people still want to believe the earth is static.

In parts of Alaska too, CTD, they really do get over 300' feet of snow per year, pretty reliably. they helicopter you up to the tops of mountains and you have to find your way back to town. really.

Hypothesis: 'layers' or 'bands' in glaciers represent years. [color:"red"] Falsified [/color]
Amended hypothesis: Evolutionist experts can distinguish 'layers' or 'bands' which represent years from others and obtain accurate counts. [color:"red"]Falsified [/color]

The continued publication of propaganda based on these hypotheses constitutes a grave insult to the intelligence of the common man. The "we're smarter than you" bluff is a foolish game played by the elitists. Even if it were so, what could be said of their integrity? A source of information needs to be both competent and trustworthy. (That <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hehehe.gif" alt="" />'if' is just for the sake of argument; we have too much evidence of stupification to suggest it seriously.)

Right now, at this very moment as a matter of fact, it is either raining or snowing egads lots in Tibet. Because a cyclone hit just south of there yesterday, so powerful they think over 10,000 people died.

here's news about the cyclone:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080505/wl_nm/myanmar_dc

and here's a satelitte photo I just snatched from accuweather 5 minutes ago showing the remnants of the cyclone heading up over Tibet and into China.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ipepduunli.jpg">


so, if you want to claim that the weather on the Tibetan plataeu is peaceful and that the ice in those glaciers doesn't flow like ice in glaciers in Alaska, I wish you luck.

Thanks again CTD for the effort you put into your response.

And yet they must have known before hand that they would need it, or they would not have brought it along.

All of which has nothing to do with anything posted so far, so you are (again) providing what could be called either hand waving or a "knee-jerk" non-sequitur response, as opposed to one that actually deals with the evidence and the argument.

In other words you refuse to deal with the evidence and you would rather use ad hominem attacks than reason. It is not just a matter of "debunking" the varves, as that alone would not explain the correlations between the varves and these ice layers. The issue is why they give the same answers.

Another comment that basically admits that you can't do it, and another non-sequitur comment that has nothing to do with answering the evidence or the argument.

Note that I predicted your failure to deal with the evidence. It is always nice to see predictions come to pass eh? Lots of irrelevant hand waving, but nothing that affects the facts. Again, thanks for your effort to distract people from the fact you can't answer the argument, as that is the best evidence that you have no real response to make.

Why do the Dundee ice cores and Lake Suigetsu varves give the same climate change over time results? Why do both of these match the results from the tree rings?

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

That's a really good example of flow by the way. If the plane hadn't been able to flow down as more snow fell, it would have been crushed under the weight of that much ice.

Probably safe to assume little bits of dirt and pollen that were swept along in the wind onto the snow at the same time could be found flowing downward nearby too.

Life is a river <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

Earth's Temperature 1,000 Miles Under the Surface Hits 6,650 Degrees Fahrenheit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262762,00.html

Which is why you'll rarely find a cave full of ice. Which is why glaciers also melt from the bottom up, not just the top down. Which is even why very deep caves inside tall mountains tend to be very warm.

Glaciers aren't being kept frozen by the earth surface temperature, they keep the earth cold for a little bit of depth here and there because the ice becomes cold water which in turn is constantly melting and flowing into the earth in those places too. Which is why we have glacial rivers and lakes.

essentially, it is virtually impossible for a glacier to exist statically unchanged from bottom to top for 40,000 years because the earth itself is warm, very warm. If it were so, the glaciers would be hundreds of miles high.

Yes indeed, even tibet has hot spring spas! warmed and made bubbly by the earth itself, not the atmosphere.
http://www.cuyahogaproductions.com/photo_of_the_week_2004/2004.10.28.html

Jeez, just a few minutes' conversation here and there with my sister-in-law, who is a professor of geology specialising in glaciers, is enough for me to spot the scientific errors here. I'm interested in what she does and I ask her about it sometimes. For example, I know that the water at the bottom of a glacier is a supercooled liquid layer which would instantly freeze if it were brought to the surface but is kept liquid because of the intense pressure it's under. It's got nothing to do with the temperature of the earth a thousand miles below the surface. Surface features we see, apart from volcanoes and hot spots which vent the heat up to the surface, have little to do with this either.

We'll overlook that fact for now that experts like my relative have carefully been studying ice fields and glacial features across the world for centuries. Let's look at your reasons for saying that it's impossible for ice to be old. Please explain, then, why the climatic data that Razd has presented from ice layers, varves and tree rings all agree. It's a pretty strange coincidence, don't you think?

Just a small note to my comments above.

Glaciologists study the rate at which ice flows in different places. It flows at different rates in different places. The climate is different in different places. Scientists are aware of these rates when they drill ice cores. I suggest before SoSick makes off-the-cuff comments about glacial flow rate in the Himalayas, that she actually look up some information about this. My relative spends months every summer studying flow rates in Iceland, among other things. It's pretty funny that you think you're just as qualified to tell her she's dead wrong.

Your own source about the Alaskan glaciers, CTD, said most are quite young, not all. This is why Alaskan ice cores from some select areas show a climatic record dating back one or two thousand years. And why scientists understand that they would not be able to obtain dates from there which are older than this. Ice cores from Antarctica and China, however, have been dated to several hundred thousand years before the present. The article I linked to earlier explains some of the dating methods that are used, and a general search including Wikipedia will provide information too.

This is all very interesting, but the question remains: why do dates from ice cores, varves, and tree rings agree? If you think you've "debunked" one, then what about the others?

Is is is. But the past is about was was was. The old saw about "the present is the key to the past" is showing its age. Surely if the political movement supported by these findings is correct, conditions are very much subject to change.

The author of your pdf article was aware that the annual rate was "aware" that the rate was 7 ft. per year. Yet he said "Add to these melt layers the actual annual layers, which near the top show up as several lines within the space of a few inches, ..." Just what good does this kind of awareness do them?

Not really, many of them never consider flow, they don't seem to be aware of it. Kind of a bit of contention there among people who study this stuff.




Not off the cuff, dear. Perhaps you should take up your argument with the US Geological Survey. Or at least read the link I posted above to their Alaska glacier faq page.



I repeat, take your argument to the USGS. I'm sure they would be real interested to hear that you have some information about glaciers in Alaska that they are unaware of.

... and now she has ice in Antarctica and China dating back several hundred thousand years !!<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bibi.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps data that appears to correlate in varves or tree rings is simply wishful thinking. Perhaps climate in places is not all that different from year to year. Perhaps even the earth itself for some strange reason in some strange places, unbeknownst to the people sitting in the hotsprings drinking their margueritas, is separated from the core of the earth and truly is frozen, which is why ice never melts in that peculiar spot... And a plane under 250 feet of thousands of year old ice is a scientific miracle!

Tell ya what, why don't you simply follow the examples of everyone else here and post real life examples of your ideas instead of just posting your ideas as proof of nothing all the time? RAZD's data may not be fully accurate according to other data and real life examples but at least he makes an effort to back his ideas up with more than dreaming. You might consider following his example to avoid tempting another dumb argument about your insistent lies and hippocritical methods. I've noticed your sister in law hasn't bothered to show up and support your statements either so chances are excellent you are as confused about information she may have mentioned to you in passing at Thanksgiving dinner 2 years ago as you are about what the USGS has determined about the age of glacial ice in Alaska and the contention between scientists who consider ice flow and those who appear to be completely unaware of it. Like Al Gore for instance, you know him, the global warming scientist that was vice pres for a bit... he said he invented the internet too (go ahead quote him), you've heard of him by now... the guy that thinks you should pay taxes to stop the atmosphere from getting too warm and the sun from shining too brightly so that all that hundreds of thousand year old ice can stay just where it was last time he looked.

Things are really going to come to a head when AL goes around to all those mountain top hot spring resorts and tries to shut them ice melting filthy CO2 generators down, tellin ya.

What percentage of glaciologists don't account for glacial flow when taking ice core samples? Could you provide a list of research reports on ice cores that show the flow of the ice was not taken into account during sampling?
If you are not using research reports as a basis for your statement, what are you using to determine that many glaciologists don't account for ice movement in making their conclusions in regard to their research?


They were writing specifically about Alaska glaciers and even stated that other glaciers and ice caps were different. To wit: "NOTE: There is "really old" ice near the bases of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and in a few special places in the world’s mountains."
Besides that, what do you think the USGS did to determine the age of the ice within glaciers that have been around since before people lived in that area of Alaska? What did they look at to tell how old the ice was?

RAZD has shown that the varves, ice cores, and tree rings show very detailed correlations with each other. So it is not wishful thinking unless you can provide a young earth explanation about the correlation such that the rings, varves, and ice layers don't actually mark yearly passage of time.

He also used the yearly accumulation of snow and a little math to show that the planes should have been under a lot of ice. Also, the layers reported by the explorer were analyzed by scientists and shown to differ from annual layers in that they showed indications of melting at the layer boundaries which isn't present in an actual annual layer boundary.


I am not following your line of thinking here. Who's AL?

apparently quite a few of them, I ran into papers written by researchers arguing against this type of research in a brief 15 minute search on the net just yesterday, you should try it. i don't save every link, it would be real tiring and my posts would be way too long and sometimes I get the impression that some people only read the first five sentences of any post anyway..



How old exactly? Near the bases btw, not at the base and disincluding the whole of the main parts of the glaciers. I think you missed what they were saying there. And permafrost perchance? How old exactly?



I don't know why don't you ask them?



I don't know.

Here is a short and simple explanation of glaciers and flow:

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ae.html

Any claims that glaciers exist, anywhere, with ice that is 40,000, and eeek, several hundred thousand years old can easily be eradicated through the mention of flow.

Which none of you have apparently heard of before, ain't that something...

It's impossible for glacial ice to be that old because glaciers are always advancing and/or retreating and ice melts both from the top down and the bottom up. Always, everywhere. Even in Antarctica, where believe it or not, there is unfrozen water beneath the glaciers, and unfrozen earth beneath the glaciers, and a very hot core at the center of the earth helping to make life possible even in very cold places. like Antarctica. Ever seen photos of those steam vents at the bottom of the ocean? Boiling hot water, hotter than boiling, miles and miles under the sea. Put there by God to melt glaciers.

The oxygen-18 isotope profile of the Dome Fuji ice core from Antarctica suggests that the age of the deeper part of the core corresponds to Marine Isotope Stage 17 (about 720,000 years before present).

http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~domef/icc-home/ICC-pub-files/2007/07KOPRI-uemura.pdf

The surface ice movement rate at Dome Fuji is less than several centimeters per year, and you can read about the ways that glaciologists determine such flow rates here:

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/3/19/2007/cpd-3-19-2007.pdf

Where's your evidence that these glaciers can't possibly be so old?

Also, where exactly did you learn about hydrothermal vents and their relationship to glaciers? Last I knew, hydrothermal vents weren't clustered around glacial areas, but you're welcome to enlighten me.

It ran off.



Does it really matter where I learned what (none of your business i would say anyway because I forget anyway) and what you think you know compared to the evidence that is all around us in real time everyday? Do hot springs in antarctica mean anything? Volcanos? do you know what causes thermal vents? Umm lava flow, hot earth core... duuuh...is any part of the earth immune to it? How about mountains, big mountains like mt everest with seashells at it's top... where we find glaciers near the bases hmm? No relation to thermal vents you say? Does having this knowledge even begin to put a nip in what you think you know? it should but i doubt that it will.

Volcanos and hot springs in antarctica

You know what I really think... suddenly researchers have cameras and videos and airplanes, suddenly historically speaking and so suddenly people are up in arms./// oh m'gosh the icebergs are melting.. global warming !!! But yeah well there all these reasearchers who have done all this research over the past several decades telling us things are hundreds of thousands of years old and well, we have cameras and videos and airplanes now and it's so obvious it isn't true so they yell global warming instead as if icebergs have never melted before.

the earth was warmer than it is now 700 years ago and people weren't screaming global warming. In fact they were upset when the earth started coooling again. but of course they didn't have volumes of research, $$valuable$$ reputations, and billions of dollars of wasted tax money to explain away either.

and the internet, what the availability of information to the whole globe is doing to their otherwise pristine textbook reputations & careers. It's got to be global warming, that's it!

No one will ever disprove evolution since it cannot be proven in the first place, but your glacier models and dates... they are all wet.

We may actually even learn in our own lifetimes why the indians felt ok about selling the island of Manhattan for a handful of beads or whatever.

Mount Melbourne in North Victoria Land still has steam vents...

There, now you are enlightened.

Just a couple of comments here, CTD:

What has been shown is that not all layers are annual. This mundane fact holds for Greenland and Antarctica as well as most places on earth. It is about as fascinating as showing that cows eat grass and belch methane.

Where? None of the "information" provided by SoSick is verified, nor (based on past experience) anything more than hearsay (argument from anonymous authority). Nothing has been done to address the markers in the ice that show annual changes that occur in the proportions of oxygen isotopes, dust and pollen layers or the kinds of ice produced during dark months.

Rather this is just another example of trying to distract people from the real evidence by talking about something different and not related.

Can you find evidence for young earth? of course, but that doesn't mean the earth is young it just means it is older than the evidence. All the evidence. and when you add it up, it doesn't take long to show that the YEC myth of a young earth is about as valid as a geocentric earth or even a flat earth -- after all you can find evidence to support them as well. All you have to do is ignore the evidence that refutes it.

Enjoy.

Hello LinearAg.

You gotta love it: one minute SoSick is saying "THE EARTH IS NOT STATIC" the next she argues that it wasn't that different.

Problem is that (a) the evidence shows that it is not static, (b) has not been static, and (c) that it has had some rather extreme changes. This makes her special pleading here AND her portrayal of science as depending on a static earth both false.

Probably Al Gore: CTD has some kind of bug in his bonnet about this thread involving global warming (it doesn't), or it's some kind of pet peeve of his.

Careful, that's awfully close to evidence ... you forget that a typical distraction type YEC argument is to compare things to places where they know things are young, in order to show that those places those things are young.

Enjoy.

ha ha ha.

you are joking right? You can read and look at photos right?

apparently not. Your theories are obviously more precious to you than photographs and rock solid proof of constanly moving and shape changing glaciers.


not true, I did mention the dust storms of tibet and china. which are rather prolific. and which btw, being so prolific and which have been going for aeons as far as anyone remembers... inbetween snowfalls numerous times in one season... are typical of the climate in Tibet, just like volcanos are typical of the mountains of western south america. and monsoons typical of the asian peninsula, greatly affecting the weather of western china. If you want to call those things representative of a static earth, I dare say, you have your head on backwards. they are typical of the behavior of the non-static earth. Static weather does.... nothing. And in certain places, like tibet, even Peru, you can expect certain activity of certain sorts.

Just like the volcanoes of Peru and Chili. One just blew up yesterday matter of fact, well it's perhaps about to spill it's guts in the mountains of chili. sure left plenty of ash so far. need a photo? nah I won't bother, it wouldn't make a bit of sense to you anyway... Just a real life event, nothing compared to a theory. look it up yourself.

Thank you for your link to geothermal activity in Antarctica SoSick, though it has nothing to do with hydrothermal vents (which don't appear to have anything to do with this thread anyway). Presumably you read on that link page where it says that Mt. Melbourne formed 5 million years ago, and that its youngest volcanic dome is 2 million years old? How about where it says that Antarctica fused with another crustal plate 65 million years ago and that the Antarctic plate hasn't moved much in the last 10 million years?



Please explain to me why you think that thermal vents are responsible for the seashells on top of Mt. Everest. Instead of, for example, deposition of fossils on a seabed and subsequent uplift.

Whoever wrote that article seems fairly confused, perhaps another case of the short attention spans.First they say it's been there since the creation of the planet; then they say "at least 1,5000 million years". Clearly they can't be trusted to assign credible dates.

Your assignment of the 2 million year age to the dome makes more sense than theirI expect a hole is a rather tricky thing to date. Sampling the contents of the hole just wouldn't mean much to most folks. I doubt any layers would be visible, although one might be able to calculate the average amount transiting the hole annually.

Given that dating of volcanoes is known to produce erroneous results (forgive my understatement), it's a wonder anyone is so credulous as to accept the figures.I don't speak for SoSick, but I'm wondering if you've considered what kinds of phenomena are associated with uplift.

geothermal vents, hydrothermal vents, they are the same thing Linda. both release very hot steam (and other gases). Very hot molten lava below the earth's crust, or even sometimes within it not very far below the earth's surface, heats the steam in both cases.



those timespans are pure conjecture, most people know that.



Well, we can venture that either Mt Everest was once covered by the sea, which would easily confirm a global flood, or we can venture that the earth's hot molten core (which causes thermal activity) and shifting tetonic plates pushed it up to it's great height.

I guess you have to choose one or the other as regards Mt Everest and other mountains because the seashells are there for all to see. And so are the thermal vents and hot springs. And the volcanoes. ...And the glaciers that formed as snow slid off the mountainsides. Maybe you have your own theory for how the mountains came to be? That would not be surprising.

You guys can keep denying that the earth is warm below it's surface and melts glaciers from the bottom up. You can keep repeating that thermal activity never occurs in mountains or the sea in the same places where glaciers exist, melting them a little bit daily also. I don't really see where it gets you except to promote yourself in your own minds. People aren't stupid... and they can visit these places on their next vacation if they decide to and bring you hundreds of photos back. Not that even that would convince you but the only ones you are fooling are yourselves because these places actually exist, it's not theoretical.

Here are a bunch of links for you. I do sincerely hope you take the time to investigate them. You can find plenty more info about thermal acitivity (geo or hydro, it doesn't matter) in any of these places on the web because there's plenty to observe.

Iceland is one of the most active volcanic countries in the world.

Volcanoes of Perú

Tibetan Plateau
Most pingos in the permafrost region of the high northern Tibetan Plateau form along active fault zones and many change position annually along the zones and thus appear to migrate. The fault zones conduct geothermal heat, which thins permafrost, and control cool to hot springs in the region.

Detection of Widespread Fluids in the Tibetan Crust by Magnetotelluric Studies


Will Global Warming Unleash More Seismic Activity?
As reported only this year, Harvard seismologist Göran Ekström has found a striking increase in the frequency of glacial quakes, particularly in Greenland, but also in Alaska and Antarctica.

Greenland quakes have risen from 6 to 15 a year between 1993 and 2002, to 30 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005, closely matching the rise in Greenland's temperatures over the same period. Their source was traced to surges and slips within ice sheets, where rapid melting is causing water to collect under glaciers, making them glide faster into the sea, triggering quakes.

Similarly, retreating glaciers in southern Alaska are likely to open the way for future earthquake activity.

Already, as the ice melts, we are seeing evidence of new volcanic activity in Antarctica. A new, previously unknown volcano has appeared on the sea bottom in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, in an area with no previous record of volcanic activity. Investigations into a large area of surface slumping on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet revealed a huge accumulation of water underneath that has now been shown to be due to an active volcano erupting under the sheet...


I have actually been reading about this stuff since I was a little kid, a subscription to national geographic was my birthday present every year since about the age of 8 and everytime a volcano blew up or new areas of thermal venting of any consequence was discovered they wrote about it. quite seriously there is plenty of it happening all the time, it's not a new phenonema. The earth is hot and liquid in the center and we live, by the grace of God, on these floating areas of crust on it's surface. A very cold atmosphere, not a cold earth, keeps ice from melting altogether in places. The earth itself is always working to melt that ice.

you might also look up what is known as 'the ring of fire' if you need a quick tutor on a larger scale of the earth's thermal activity.

Not difficult to clarify. Because something is expressed awkwardly in a sentence, you think that makes the entire webpage a pack of lies? Nice try.


And you have no idea how scientists do it, do you? Because it's so easy to say something is wrong without backing up your comments with a shred of proof.


This PRATT has already been discussed here. Your inrepid New Zealand explorers either deliberately used a radiometric dating method (K-Ar) which they knew would give erroneous results, because it is inappropriate for rock which is only a few hundred years old; or they just plain didn't know what they were doing.


Seashells on top of mountains would make another good discussion, particularly if you are about about to tell us why you presumably think they're not there due to uplift. However, I'd first like to see an answer to the questions RAZD has presented here. We're getting sidetracked.

SoSick, I think we need to clarify the point you are making. That geothermal activity occurs is not in doubt. It occurs all over the world. And yes, it occurs in Iceland, because Iceland is on top of the Mid-Atlantic Rift. Surely you're not claiming, though, that this activity occurs underneath every glacier on earth? What's more, I'm not sure why you're claiming that a "warm" surface of the earth metls glaciers. You live up a mountain. Do you get snow that stays there all winter, and doesn't melt until it gets warm in the spring? Does the earth feel warm to you in the winter?


Then back this up with some evidence, if it's so obvious. The scientists who studied the mountain would like to know where they went wrong I'm sure.

Like I said to CTD, seashells on top of mountains is another good topic, but I'd rather not get sidetracked from the topic RAZD started here. Why does the evidence from ice, varves, and tree rings agree in such a detailed way?

No, we do not get snow that stays all winter here believe it or not. Even the highest peaks around here which are over a mile and a quarter high, do not get snow that stays all winter. Because the earth is warm and because the heat of the sun melts it. It's rare for it to stay all winter anyway, at any measurable depth. But it starts snowing quite early in late October or mid-November. It's not for lack of snowfall. you get a few warm sunny days, it melts, it snows again etc etc. ony the ski resorts have snow all winter because they are always making snow.

And yes, the earth feels warm to me in winter. that is how my flower bulbs survive year to year after all. If the earth they are buried 5-6 iches down into were to get too cold, like permafrost, they would die. There's even a method to grow tropical trees of a good size outdoors in climates like this, you uproot them halfway, and lean them over, and bury them with dirt. the earth will keep them from freezing. Kind of a pain, a lot of work but it;s a keeping up with the jones' sort of thing. Pretty much how I protect my early tomatoes from a late feeze too, I bury them halfway. There are actually hot springs about 40 miles north of us. And we get earth quakes too. real mountains with shifting plates and thermal vents to allow the pressure of the heat of the earth's interior as the plates move and melt to escape, like most mountains anywhere.

Any place (ANY PLACE) where it feezes in winter has unfrozen earth at some below the top surface, some just a bit deeper than other places depending on the season. that is how prarie dogs even survive the harsh winters of North Dakota. they burrow down and live in little caves that stay about 50 degrees warm all winter. Because the earth is warm. even if the sun doesn;t shine all winter their caves will stay warm. Partly from body heat, partly from the earth's heat.

but most caves stay rasonably warm, even natural ones, water does not freeze in them...some are quite warm.. there are deep mines in south america, high up on mountains that get really hot as you go deeper down into them for instance.

Glaciers are always wet on the bottom for the same reason, they melt. Partly from the earth's warmth and partly from the heat generated from the friction of motion. I don't have to explain why glaciers sitting in the sea are always melting from the bottom upwards i hope. Anyway the lakes under the glaciers of antarctica are pretty self explanatory. Antarctica is mostly just a big block of ice sitting on the warm earth.



Why do I need evidence that it is conjecture? Scientists themselves admit that. No one needs to post proof for something that has no real proof except the statement of 'it's an educated guess' to back itself up. It's my educated guess that the mountains are not that old, due to the presence, still, of sea fossils on their tops. They would have eroded long long ago if the mountains were that old. simply from the force of the wind and rain. You yourself have claimed that the grand canyon was formed by erosion, how does that justify MT Everest's age or the millions upon millions of years ages of mountains in antarctica? Should'nt they all be one big grand canyon by now using your same logic? shouldn't there be Grand Canyon's everywhere?



maybe something else causes them to have similar features. maybe it's just pressure causing less oxygen to be present in places etc. maybe it's CO2 seeping UP from the ground and settling in the mud in certain ways. Difficlut to say Linda, it's all just an educated guess at some point. You should get more of an education. because the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. You are both only working with a very small number of available possibilities to make the great big assumptions you make. You obviously are not aware of other possibilities.

and yes btw, thermal energy is actively working under every single glacier on earth, to some extent or another, and because glaciers move that alone causes enough friction to cause bottom melting too you know. I hope by now you are well convinced now that volcanoes and thermal vents and glaciers can co-exist side by side, sort of. at least that is some progress. just takes lots of snow (some of which is generated by thermal vents in antarctica btw) and a very cold atmsophere. Of course if the volcanoes really get going like is happening in antarctica it appears, it might be bye bye glacier. the ring of fire started getting pretty active 15, maybe a full 25 years ago already.

it'll be an interesting decade.

You should even really investigate what happens to all that fresh ice water as it melts from the bottom of glaciers in or near the sea.

Why don't you investigate exactly how deep people are able to drill into the earth before having to back off due to the tremendous heat?

Because that tremendous heat is a constant no matter where you go on the planet.

You seem to be using evidence to back up your claim that Mt Everest is not more than 6000 years old. Ok

Scientists (geologists/geochronologists) also use evidence to back up their claim that Mt Everest is very old. Their "educated guess" uses a lot more education/knowledge than guessing. You seem to be saying that they just made it up with no evidence to support it at all.

An analogy:

You are trying to determine a person's age. That person has white hair that is quite sparse on the top. There are deep deep wrinkles on his forehead and around his eyes. His knuckles are swollen and misshapen. He even has wrinkles on his knees. His posture is very stooped and he uses a walker to slowly get around. When he talks to you, he tells stories about being a kid in Chicago when Al Capone was running the city.

Would you guess that he was 6 months old? Of course not, because you see the indicators of age and understand how long it takes for those indicators to show up on a person.

There are a number of issues with this paragraph. You seem to believe that the Earth is static even though it has been pointed out to you that the Earth's continents are moving. Mt. Everest is actually rising due to the collision between the Asian continent and the India subcontinent. The rise is very slow, on the order of centimeters, but it is faster than erosion in that area. Some places in the world are rising and making mountains while other parts are eroding away.

We don't have all Grand Canyons because, besides being logically impossible, erosion rates are different in different parts of the world. The main cause of the Grand Canyon's erosion is the Colorado river.

Scientists see the wrinkles (Grand Canyons) on the Earth. They see the massive accumulations of sand in sandstone and in loose piles. They even see rocks that are pieces of sand that have hardened into sandstone then eroded away from the sandstone. They see continents that used to be touching each other are many miles apart.

The scientists have investigated how fast things erode, and how fast the continents are moving apart. Thus they have an "educated guess" about how long it would take to make all that sand and dig the Grand Canyon. These scientists know enough about how geology works, that they can tell if something eroded away fast or slowly.

Based on their observation of the existing features of the Earth and their knowledge of the time it takes to get those features, scientists conclude the Earth is very old. Just as you would have determined that the person mentioned above is quite old.

and since we're on the subject... you know how the bible says God caused the flood by bringing up the waters from beneath the earth... it was actually proven by drilling that there is lots of water, hot water, under the earth:

7 mile deep hole in Russia

and here's some other neat stuff that might interest you too:

Energy: Pressure cooker Earth

The Heat Beneath Your Feet

oh cut it out Linear, i'm the one who keeps pointing out that the earth is not static and the static methods you guys apply to everything as though they are fixated like musuem antiquities in climate controlled vaults is ridiculous..

learn to read, i have repeatedly said the earth is in motion much to the disdain of you all. Better yet even, learn to think.

honestly.

Why bother with analogy when we have history? There were people who desired the Earth to be ancient beyond belief. They set about to find any evidence they could possibly misinterpret to support this claim. They took sediments and claimed that they accumulated slowly over millions of years rather than quickly as the result of deposition. Nobody believed their nonsense until they overthrew science and put their own people in place. After the takeover, they began searching for more backup, since the sediment story was so obviously false.

There's really no mystery at all here.

I'm still not sure what your point is, SoSick. Do you read the links that you give here? The one about drilling said that the bottom of the sample was dated to 2.7 billion years old. Usually a suitable radiometric dating method (i.e. not K-Ar for very young samples) would be employed to discover this; it is not just a guess. This presumably is why people who want to disprove an old earth occasionally seem to find the time and the means to go get some samples and date them with methods they know will provide erroneous results so that they can say, "Look! We got an erroneous result!"

It's well known that the earth is hot inside. It's also well known that the heat comes from radioactive decay. I honestly hope you would have picked up some geophysical knowledge from the things you say you've been reading. But you seem to want to be presenting the idea that this heat continuously reaches up to the very top of the crust, everywhere. You seem to think that a permanent snow layer is not possible because the earth should be causing the ice to melt. I don't understand why you think this is a logical possibility.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to have a serious read of the Wiki about glaciers before you carry on in this vein. It explains, for example, that the ice in polar glaciers is always below freezing. It also explains that while basal flow (moving along meltwater) is one way for a glacier to move, it is not the only way. The frozen polar glaciers move by a process called plastic flow, which is also similar to the way rock can move and deform under the surface of the earth. The processes involve great pressures.

Antarctica is the coldest place on earth. The subglacial lakes which have been discovered would be caused by geothermal heat venting to the surface. The rest of the surface there is pretty cold, apart from a few volcanoes.