Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Mike PSS]

Good times Dave, Good times.
I only wish to state that you read the reasoning behind my statement, instead of the statement itself. As your graph clearly shows, with your assumptions, the results DON'T match the observed reality of constant C14 levels in the biosphere for the past 4000 years.

Care to comment on that Dave? Why doesn't your model of C14 match up with the observed data for the past 4000 years?

How is it that you have been able to observe Carbon 14 levels for the past 4000 years? Do you have a time machine?

Dave, you have a selective memory. This is a claim that is made by R.H.Brown. I just happen to agree with him in this case.

COMPATIBILITY OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY
WITH C-14 AGE
R. H. Brown
Yucaipa, California
Origins 21(2):66-79 (1994).

WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT

The essential agreement between C-14 age and real time over the past 3000-3500 years is readily accounted for by the equilibrium inventory of C-14 that can be expected to have been established in the Upper Biosphere within 1000-2000 years after the Genesis Flood.

From R.H.Brown at GRISDA.

I'll give you 500 years and restate that your model must show a constant C14 level in the biosphere for the past 3500 years.

Anything else? Or are you ready to discuss the deficiencies in your model?

Need I remind you that you feel "Somewhat Confident" that C14 levels were constant in the past.

From the thread that keeps on giving.
Let me reiterate the things I feel confident about and the things I don't ...

CONFIDENT
1) There was a global flood ~4750 ya
2) This flood buried huge amounts of organic material
3) Pennsylvanian coal has avg. 0.24pMC C14 concentration which implies that it is <50,000 yo. This C14 cannot be explained by "in situ" decay. Since this coal is supposedly 300myo, this is a major problem for the Deep Time view.

SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT
1) Modern UB has ~5600kg of C14
2) Modern total inventory C14 is ~44,000kg
3) Modern C14 production rate ~10.2kg/yr
4) Our knowledge of C14 concentration over the last 3000 years

NOT SO CONFIDENT
1) Shape of Brown's curve in the Flood era
2) Our knowledge of actual C14 concentration over the last 5000 years
3) C14 production rate changes in the Flood era
4) Total C14 being in equilibrium today

So I feel good about the two endpoints on the curve ... pre-Flood C14 concentration and the modern situation. And I think I believe we have a pretty good idea about the last 3000 years (although I have some questions), but the intervening 2000 years (5000 ya - 3000 ya) is fuzzy to me still and I'm not sure Brown has pegged it. But I feel that Brown's difficulties are like "motes" in his eye, whereas the difficulties for the Deep Time view are more like "beams." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Over to you Dave.

[Mike PSS]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

Yet for some reason you have not come up with a valid argument to even begin to cast doubt upon the method.

So your doubts here are only founded upon your own ignorance of the methods involved. Or do you have something NEW to discuss w.r.t. dendrochronology?

Remember Dave, it's all about volcanism. Those pesky volcanic events are used to tie together the different dating mechanisms like dendro-, ice cores, lake varves, and others.

[Dave Hawkins]

Brown doesn't have any better time machine than you do. His belief that C14 has been constant over the past 4000 years is an inference, not an observation.

[Zadok001]

Good times Dave, Good times.
I only wish to state that you read the reasoning behind my statement, instead of the statement itself. As your graph clearly shows, with your assumptions, the results DON'T match the observed reality of constant C14 levels in the biosphere for the past 4000 years.

Care to comment on that Dave? Why doesn't your model of C14 match up with the observed data for the past 4000 years?

How is it that you have been able to observe Carbon 14 levels for the past 4000 years? Do you have a time machine?

It's that word you don't like, Dave - Curves. The same way we know the carbon levels for the last 10,000 years.

Just to clarify, are you implying here that carbon dating doesn't work for the last 4000 years? I mean, it fits well with written records, and alternative dating methods create a coherent calibration curve, so there's no real reason to believe it's wrong... Of course, the same is true for all older carbon dating.

Once again, Dave, I think you'll look around and find yourself screwed no matter which way you walk. Either C14 dates for the last 4000 years are wrong, and square with known history by sheer fucking coincidence, or they are right, and since the process doesn't magically change when we go back further than 4000 years, you're boned that way, too.

Good luck getting out of this one with your dignity intact. Actually, nix that, no such creature.

[Mike PSS]

Brown doesn't have any better time machine than you do. His belief that C14 has been constant over the past 4000 years is an inference, not an observation.

Dave, R.H.Brown doesn't "infer" anything. He makes a quantitative claim.

AGREEMENT OF C-14 AGE WITH REAL-TIME AGE
...
The validity of the tree-ring master sequences on which the data for Figure 1 is based is controlled by the availability of material which can be C-14 dated and also has an unquestioned historical age. The time range from which such samples are available extends to the vicinity of 3500 BP (~1500 BC).5 The essential agreement between C-14 age and real time over this time range indicates an approximately constant C-14/C-12 ratio in the reservoir from which the samples for C-14 dating have been obtained. In other words, the Upper Biosphere has been in essential equilibrium (equal C-14 input and output rates) over at least the past 3500 years.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm
So open the paper and tell me where there is "inferrence" going on.

I'm just the messenger here. Take it up with R.H.Brown.

ETA: Dave, are you channelling Ken Ham here? Just wonderring.

[ericmurphy]

Good times Dave, Good times.
I only wish to state that you read the reasoning behind my statement, instead of the statement itself. As your graph clearly shows, with your assumptions, the results DON'T match the observed reality of constant C14 levels in the biosphere for the past 4000 years.

Care to comment on that Dave? Why doesn't your model of C14 match up with the observed data for the past 4000 years?

How is it that you have been able to observe Carbon 14 levels for the past 4000 years? Do you have a time machine?

Because we can date historical objects of known age, Dave. For crying out loud. Do you think before you type?

[Shirley Knott]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

WHY NOT??
Will you EVER explain this in a factually accurate, coherent, consiliient fashion?

Oh, right, what was I thinking...

You felching liar.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[ericmurphy]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

How does it have "nothing to do" with carbon 14, Dave? Do you think the number of rings changes on a tree once it's dead?

Do you even think before you type?

[Gary Hurd]

I see, so are you suggesting that these layers are there, but with them being so young, they are easily disturbed by the core-drilling process?

Yep. The bottoms of anaerobic lakes can be like a thick gel with E coli and other anaerobic bacteria. Now, if the sulfide was real high too the bacteria load would be lower, but still there. As material continues to accumulate the bottom gets compressed and dewatered. The diatom/clay ratios are varied annually and the "flocculate" is just the still runny stuff on top.

If the total amount of clay introduced greatly increased, or the diatoms were greatly reduced, and the flow rate increased the whole system might fail.



Edited to add, If laminate is lost the core appears younger anyway which just makes the problem for YECs worse.

[Occam's Aftershave]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

It has everything to do with C14 Dave. If I measure the C14/C12 ratio of a sample that you admit is actually 4700 years old, then that empirical measurement must represent reality 4700 years ago. But on your (or RH Brown's more precisely) dumbass chart, you show that C14/C12 measurement only being approx. 4000 years old. That's a discrepancy of 700 rings you have to account for Dave. Where did the extra 700 rings come from Dave? Did every tree in the world grow 2 rings a day for a solid year?

And the tree rings counts go back to over 11,000 years Dave. Since everything up to 4700 is accurate, that means the trees had to grow 6300 rings in 1300 years. How did they do that Dave? Do you have any evidence or mechanism for that?

And the lake varves and the marine sediment cores and the ice cores ALL AGREE with the tree ring data Dave. When will you deal with that fact?

When will you justify the assumption of ZERO C14 at a time 6000 years ago Dave?

Why does none of the C14 cal data show your claimed 100X carbon spike 4700 years ago Dave?

You just can't help but contradict yourself every time you open your mouth, can you? Par for the course for a dickless wonder like Dave Hawkins.

[Dave Hawkins]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

[Shirley Knott]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

How does it have "nothing to do" with carbon 14, Dave? Do you think the number of rings changes on a tree once it's dead?

Do you even think before you type?

Neither before nor after.
Apparently, dave is suffering from a rare allergic reaction to thought -- he acts as if he would die and go straight to hell []his inevitable destination given his track record and obvious non-belief] if his own brain were ever to have a thought.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[RAFH]

Brown doesn't have any better time machine than you do. His belief that C14 has been constant over the past 4000 years is an inference, not an observation.

Where's your time machine, davey? Everyone of your statements is one based upon your beliefs, not evidence. There is a big difference.

As as this denial shows, while you will tout anyone that agrees with you, as soon as they don't, you claim they don't know shit. Doesn't that sort of set off any alarms in your head davey? Even little tiny ones?

[ericmurphy]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

Dave, it has EVERYTHING to do with dating a tree that died 300 years ago. Or at any time in the past. Theoretically, you could do it with a tree that died a couple of decades ago.

That we can't date a living tree using radiocarbon IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

Occam knows this stuff cold, Dave. And you're trying desperately to learn as little as possible about the intersection of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology, because the more you learn, the more it becomes clear that your young-earth creationism is for shit.

[RAFH]

And let's see - you've admitted before that dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years ago because it agrees with the written historical record. The dendro record goes back over 11,000 years. That means all the trees in DavieWorld grew 7000 rings in 175 years, AND those rings precisely line up with the varves. Care to explain that?

What a distortion. Admitted dendrochronology is accurate back to 4000 years? Sure. ~4700 actually. On living trees like Methuselah. This has nothing to do with Carbon 14 however. I don't think dendrochronlogy based on dead trees like the ones the Ferguson chronology is based upon is valid.

WHY NOT??
Will you EVER explain this in a factually accurate, coherent, consiliient fashion?

Oh, right, what was I thinking...

You felching liar.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Shirley, I am not sure whether or not I should thank you for introducing me to the term 'felching'. I guess my feelings on it are similar to those reported in Wiki of Robert Williams when he was introduced to it: ""there’s a word for something like that?" That’s incredible that not only is there a word like that, but it has a provenance. ... ..." and then went on to produce a comix based on it.

So, um, erm, thanks, I guess, sort of. Well, no, I love words and this is a lulu.

[Mike PSS]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

So Dave. No mention of R.H.Brown I see.

Anytime your ready to discuss this stuff. I've only been waiting for... months.

[Dave Hawkins]

I see, so are you suggesting that these layers are there, but with them being so young, they are easily disturbed by the core-drilling process?

Yep. The bottoms of anaerobic lakes can be like a thick gel with E coli and other anaerobic bacteria. Now, if the sulfide was real high too the bacteria load would be lower, but still there. As material continues to accumulate the bottom gets compressed and dewatered. The diatom/clay ratios are varied annually and the "flocculate" is just the still runny stuff on top.

If the total amount of clay introduced greatly increased, or the diatoms were greatly reduced, and the flow rate increased the whole system might fail.



Edited to add, If laminate is lost the core appears younger anyway which just makes the problem for YECs worse.

So you still maintain that if I come back in 150 years, I will see 150 more layers? IOW, the process is still happening today in your opinion?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

No one is talking about dating living trees by coring Dave. We're discussing multiple independent empirical measurements of historical C14/C12 ratios that directly contradict your claims. We're talking about another case of afdave vs. afdave - your asinine graph directly contradicts your admission that dendro is accurate to 4700 years. Got an explanation for the extra 700 tree rings Dave? :p

Do try to keep up Dave, and do work on not being so much of a dickless coward.

[RAFH]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

Uh, davey, as soon as they take the core, it dies. Well, very soon thereafter. So, yeah, it does work. One can date tree cores, even cores taken from living trees, via ¹⁴C.

And, of course, there's the curves, davey, all the calibration curves, which are also correlated via volcanic signatures as well as astronomical cycle signatures and meteorological signatures. They all correlate, davey, all of them, each and every one. Now, I suppose it is possible for all of those to correlate by shear coincidence, possible, but the likelihood of such is so extreme as to be next to impossible. And as compared to the possibility your silly interpretation of the translations of written transcriptions in a ancient language nobody speaks any more, transcriptions your worldview abrogated from a culture it despised and did what it could to destroy of the following 2000 years, transcriptions of even older oral traditions borrowed from other even older cultures, being wrong, well, it just doesn't compare, does it? You have nothing based on nothing borrowed from nothing, all of which amounts to not much of nothing, versus the extraordinary improbability of such a coincidence. Your ignorance and hubris is matched only by your utterly fucking amazing buffoonery.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

Dave, please feel free to explain why dozens of independent data sets on historic C14/C12 ratios all agree with each other, and all completely disagree with your (RH Brown's) model.

Since reality in the form of empirical data directly contradicts your model, what does that tell us about your model?

Feel free to explain anytime at all Dave.

[Gary Hurd]

So you still maintain that if I come back in 150 years, I will see 150 more layers? IOW, the process is still happening today in your opinion?

So far. Unless (as I said above) the total amount of clay introduced greatly increased, or the diatoms were greatly reduced, and/or the flow rate greatly increased, the process of deposition and dewatering is still continuing. I have missed any analysis of the "flocculate" if any was ever done. What is it formed from; clay, diatoms, bacteria, silt, sand all the above? What are the ratios of the various materials, what are the physical parameters, pH, etc?


Unless a sediment is sealed, it will accrete, or erode. Either the varve record is being added to, or varves are being lost.

[ericmurphy]

I see, so are you suggesting that these layers are there, but with them being so young, they are easily disturbed by the core-drilling process?

Yep. The bottoms of anaerobic lakes can be like a thick gel with E coli and other anaerobic bacteria. Now, if the sulfide was real high too the bacteria load would be lower, but still there. As material continues to accumulate the bottom gets compressed and dewatered. The diatom/clay ratios are varied annually and the "flocculate" is just the still runny stuff on top.

If the total amount of clay introduced greatly increased, or the diatoms were greatly reduced, and the flow rate increased the whole system might fail.



Edited to add, If laminate is lost the core appears younger anyway which just makes the problem for YECs worse.

So you still maintain that if I come back in 150 years, I will see 150 more layers? IOW, the process is still happening today in your opinion?

Does it matter to your claims one way or another, Dave? One way or another, your model has to explain 40,000 layers. The evidence that those layers are in fact annual layers is provided by radiometric dating of organic matter, which also gives a timespan of 40,000 years. Regardless of whether the varving process is operating now or not, you need to explain that consilience.

And if you haven't managed to do so now, after months of trying, you're never going to be able to do so.

[JonF]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

Be patient, gang, Davie-dip's a little slow. It'll probably take twenty or more explicit explanations before he begins to catch on.

Davie, we date tree rings obtained by coring by two or more methods. One is counting rings. Another is 14C dating. When the two agree without any corrections we know that the 14C/12C ratio was the same back then as it is now. Other wise the two dates wouldn't agree. It's that ol' consilience that scares you more than Hell itself, Davie-pie.

For example:

• We find an old but living tree.
• We take a core of wood. Most of the core is dead wood, what isn't soon dies.
• We count the rings. Let's say that we see 2,400 rings.
• We date the 2,4000^th ring by 14C.
• The 14C method returns 2,400 radiocarbon years.
• Since the two methods produce the same value, we know that 2,400 radiocarbon years is the same as 2,400 calendar years.
• Repeat for lots of other rings in the same tree.
• Repeat for lots of trees.
• The consistent agreement between counting rings and 14C over the last 4,000 years or so proves that the 14C/12C ratio has been constant over those last 4,000 years.
• Therefore, any model that predicts a wide variation in 14C/12C ratio over the last 4,000 years is wrong ... unless it also includes explanations and calculations for the observed consilience between tree rings and radiocarbon years.

I figure if others can chime in and explain it to Davie-doodles 15 more times or thereabouts, there's a chance of him getting it.

[RAFH]

Again ... C14 has absolutely NOTHING to do with dating a living tree by tree rings obtained by coring. Sorry to disappoint you. You seem very confused, Occam.

Be patient, gang, Davie-dip's a little slow. It'll probably take twenty or more explicit explanations before he begins to catch on.

Davie, we date tree rings obtained by coring by two or more methods. One is counting rings. Another is 14C dating. When the two agree without any corrections we know that the 14C/12C ratio was the same back then as it is now. Other wise the two dates wouldn't agree. It's that ol' consilience that scares you more than Hell itself, Davie-pie.

For example:

• We find an old but living tree.
• We take a core of wood. Most of the core is dead wood, what isn't soon dies.
• We count the rings. Let's say that we see 2,400 rings.
• We date the 2,4000^th ring by 14C.
• The 14C method returns 2,400 radiocarbon years.
• Since the two methods produce the same value, we know that 2,400 radiocarbon years is the same as 2,400 calendar years.
• Repeat for lots of other rings in the same tree.
• Repeat for lots of trees.
• The consistent agreement between counting rings and 14C over the last 4,000 years or so proves that the 14C/12C ratio has been constant over those last 4,000 years.
• Therefore, any model that predicts a wide variation in 14C/12C ratio over the last 4,000 years is wrong ... unless it also includes explanations and calculations for the observed consilience between tree rings and radiocarbon years.

I figure if others can chime in and explain it to Davie-doodles 15 more times or thereabouts, there's a chance of him getting it.

And extending that 4000 years, are the varves, which include volcanic event signatures, climactic change signatures, astronomical cycle signatures, etc, that can be correlated across a number of 'counted' data sources: tree rings, varves, ice cores, speleotherm cores, corals, even just geological column cores, all of which agree, they all converge on the same dates, the same conclusions, the same paradigms, they are consilient. This consilience extends back up, way back. Of course, as it goes back farther and farther, the resolution gets coarser, the number of consilient forms reduces and the reliability decreases, but back to about 50,000 years, its really damn good.

[RAFH]

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, depending on your outlook, davey isn't going to get it, not with another 15 or 20 detailed explanations, not with 1500 explanations. He doesn't want to get it. He's tied his wagon to a myth and he is unable to untie it or bail out. Besides, davey likes the attention.

We have to sort of hope davey never does get it. if he did, we'd lose one of the best resources we have. Without davey to act the 'straight-man' there'd not be much discussion nor would many who might get it check it out and perhaps wake up.