Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Can we not be called a Republic of Freethought anymore. It's a bit embarassing.

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 13449 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2775
That's ok. You can disagree with those things.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2776
All I disagree with is the evidence that disproves my beliefs.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2777
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves 
Not all rhythmites are denoted as "varves", though it's possible, even probably some "varves" have been miscategorized as varves. This is usually in the case of people who are not educated, trained and experienced in varves and rhythmites making mistakes primarily because they do not have the education, training and experience in varves and rhythmites. I specifically refer to Civil Engineers who have made such assessments. I would never trust anyone other than an actual geologist who specializes in varves and rhythmites. I might consider a Soils Engineer if such had experience with identifying rhythmites and especially varves.

But unless you can offer some significant evidence that particular sets of what have been designated as "varves" by a geologist educated, trained and experienced with rhythmites and, especially varves, is, in fact, simply an non-annual rhythemite, your objection is irrelevant.
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya
What specific reasons do you have for not accepting this practice, other than incredulity? Are you aware that such extensions have been cross-checked with other dating methodologies and found to be quite reliable and accurate. But perhaps you can select some specific example and explain why it is not reliable and accurate?

You keep claiming you have mountains of evidence supporting your assertions, now is the time to present them, in detail, with references, links and copy-pasta.


Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2778
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of  tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Dave, I didn't actually say that "all rhymites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves".  Nor did I say that " extensions of  tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya"

Can you check what I actually wrote, and say if there is anything you disagree with?


  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2779
That's ok. You can disagree with those things.

Except that they are not things I said.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2780
That's ok. You can disagree with those things.

Except that they are not things I said.
which is why I said he was free to disagree with those things. :)
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2781
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya
Which means that I DON'T disagree with the following

Quote
But the key point is that:

    changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
    Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


This, I think, may be the part you disagree with. So let me ask: do you agree with this last part, and, if not, can you say why not?
Yes I do.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2782
So, Dave, is there anything actually in this post that you disagree with?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2783
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

OK, but do you understand that I did not say those things in that post?  Or in fact in any of this series of posts?



Which means that I DON'T disagree with the following

Quote
But the key point is that:

    changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
    Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


This, I think, may be the part you disagree with. So let me ask: do you agree with this last part, and, if not, can you say why not?
Yes I do.

Cool. But I'd like to be sure that you have read it correctly, because you are still saying that you disagree with two things that I have not said.  Are you happy to agree that I did not say either of them?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2784
Yes, I agree that you didn't say those things lol.  I feel like I'm in court being cross examined.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2785
  I feel like I'm in court being cross examined.
And you have no idea why that might be?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2786
Yes, I agree that you didn't say those things lol.  I feel like I'm in court being cross examined.

That's OK.  It's so easy for communication to fail, I just want to make sure we are on the same page at all stages. Then perhaps we can pinpoint where the disagreement is.

Gotta make dinner now brb.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2787
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2788
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Context: http://bwe1.wordpress.com
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2789
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Hahahahahaha

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2790
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Hahahahahaha
what is funny about that, Dave?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2791
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Hahahahahaha
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
Why do you waste the bandwidth to basically say "nuh uh"? Why don't you just use this post to explain yourself?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2792
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Context: http://bwe1.wordpress.com
He's still using his final argument in that "debate" to this day. The oldest living trees are only ~5,000 years old, so he finds it "highly suspect" that any dead trees would be older than that.

I can just imagine someone arguing that the oldest living humans are ~120 years old, so it's "highly suspect" that any dead people are older than that. What would you even say to a person who thought that was logical?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2793
All I disagree with is ...

1) That all rhythmites denoted as "varves" are actually true varves
2) That extensions of tree ring dating  by pattern matching can extend chronologies back beyond about 4500 ya

Bristlecone pines alone get you back at least 8681 years with overlap all the way, unless I've missed something in the scientific* literature that contradicts this.

* Shamelessly bullshit-filled YEC apologetic sites, .e.g., AIG don't qualify.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/787
Context: http://bwe1.wordpress.com
He's still using his final argument in that "debate" to this day. The oldest living trees are only ~5,000 years old, so he finds it "highly suspect" that any dead trees would be older than that.

I can just imagine someone arguing that the oldest living humans are ~120 years old, so it's "highly suspect" that any dead people are older than that. What would you even say to a person who thought that was logical?
Nothing useful to them.

ETA: I think he still doesn't understand what i did in that debate.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2794
OK, so Dave, you agree that:

  • changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
  • Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


which great.  That it is because it means we have a way of clearly distinguishing whether the deviations from the 1:1 line are due to changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios or due to errors in count date.

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, as we agree, any sample of given count-date should deviate from the 1:1 line by approximately the same amount.

However, IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, whether because the counter interpreted non-annual layers as annual, or missing layers, or  finding tree ring samples that have been overlapped that should not have been overlapped, then we should have a big spread of radiocarbon dates for any given count-date.

And another way of putting that is:

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, then the CURVES of count-date plotted against radiocarbon date should be tend to be the same, regardless of the dataset - the CURVES should AGREE.

Whereas IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, the CURVES should NOT AGREE.

And of course, famously, what the data show is this:



Even more impressively, perhaps, is the extraordinary agreement between dendro curves and curves obtained from CORAL, which forms annual bands by quite a different process:



THAT is why the radiocarbon calibration curves are such a challenge to YEC and Brown's model. They do not ASSUME that there either WAS, or WAS NOT a Global Flood.  They are based on data that MEASURE how much radiocarbon dates given by the formula when N0 is set at a constant value equal to its value in modern times DEVIATE from dates given by other dating methods.

And while you might well mistrust those other dating methods (counters may have missed varves, or added varves, or the varves may not be TRUE annual varves, or tree rings might not be made annually, or coral might not have an annual life cycle, or polar snow might not melt at the surface more than once a year, or matched tree cores might not really match up, or whatever), the clincer is that despite all those POTENTIAL sources of count-date error, the amount the radiocarbon dates for those disparate materials deviate from the 1:1 line is quite astonishingly close.

So YECs are left with the conundrum: WHY DO THOSE CURVE AGREE?  If the disrepancy is due to errors in the count-date, why the same count-date errors for widely differing materials sourced from widely different regions, and produced by widely different processes?



  • Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:44:14 PM by osmanthus

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2795
OK, so Dave, you agree that:

  • changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
  • Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


which great.  That it is because it means we have a way of clearly distinguishing whether the deviations from the 1:1 line are due to changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios or due to errors in count date.

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C13:C12 ratio changes, as we agree, any sample of given count-date should deviate from the 1:1 line by approximately the same amount.

However, IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, whether because the counter interpreted non-annual layers as annual, or missing layers, or  finding tree ring samples that have been overlapped that should not have been overlapped, then we should have a big spread of radiocarbon dates for any given count-date.

And another way of putting that is:

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C13:C12 ratio changes, then the CURVES of count-date plotted against radiocarbon date should be tend to be the same, regardless of the dataset - the CURVES should AGREE.

Whereas IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, the CURVES should NOT AGREE.

And of course, famously, what the data show is this:



Even more impressively, perhaps, is the extraordinary agreement between dendro curves and curves obtained from CORAL, which forms annual bands by quite a different process:



THAT is why the radiocarbon calibration curves are such a challenge to YEC and Brown's model. They do not ASSUME that there either WAS, or WAS NOT a Global Flood.  They are based on data that MEASURE how much radiocarbon dates given by the formula when N0 is set at a constant value equal to its value in modern times DEVIATE from dates given by other dating methods.

And while you might well mistrust those other dating methods (counters may have missed varves, or added varves, or the varves may not be TRUE annual varves, or tree rings might not be made annually, or coral might not have an annual life cycle, or polar snow might not melt at the surface more than once a year, or matched tree cores might not really match up, or whatever), the clincer is that despite all those POTENTIAL sources of count-date error, the amount the radiocarbon dates for those disparate materials deviate from the 1:1 line is quite astonishingly close.

So YECs are left with the conundrum: WHY DO THOSE CURVE AGREE?  If the disrepancy is due to errors in the count-date, why the same count-date errors for widely differing materials sourced from widely different regions, and produced by widely different processes?

FAKE DATA!!!
Are we there yet?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2796
OK, so Dave, you agree that:

  • changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
  • Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


which great.  That it is because it means we have a way of clearly distinguishing whether the deviations from the 1:1 line are due to changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios or due to errors in count date.

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C13:C12 ratio changes, as we agree, any sample of given count-date should deviate from the 1:1 line by approximately the same amount.

However, IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, whether because the counter interpreted non-annual layers as annual, or missing layers, or  finding tree ring samples that have been overlapped that should not have been overlapped, then we should have a big spread of radiocarbon dates for any given count-date.

And another way of putting that is:

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C13:C12 ratio changes, then the CURVES of count-date plotted against radiocarbon date should be tend to be the same, regardless of the dataset - the CURVES should AGREE.

Whereas IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, the CURVES should NOT AGREE.

And of course, famously, what the data show is this:



Even more impressively, perhaps, is the extraordinary agreement between dendro curves and curves obtained from CORAL, which forms annual bands by quite a different process:



THAT is why the radiocarbon calibration curves are such a challenge to YEC and Brown's model. They do not ASSUME that there either WAS, or WAS NOT a Global Flood.  They are based on data that MEASURE how much radiocarbon dates given by the formula when N0 is set at a constant value equal to its value in modern times DEVIATE from dates given by other dating methods.

And while you might well mistrust those other dating methods (counters may have missed varves, or added varves, or the varves may not be TRUE annual varves, or tree rings might not be made annually, or coral might not have an annual life cycle, or polar snow might not melt at the surface more than once a year, or matched tree cores might not really match up, or whatever), the clincer is that despite all those POTENTIAL sources of count-date error, the amount the radiocarbon dates for those disparate materials deviate from the 1:1 line is quite astonishingly close.

So YECs are left with the conundrum: WHY DO THOSE CURVE AGREE?  If the disrepancy is due to errors in the count-date, why the same count-date errors for widely differing materials sourced from widely different regions, and produced by widely different processes?




I think you put too much into this one. I would have stopped at the part I bolded.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2797
OK, but I already stopped there last time.  And waited for Dave to clearly sign on.

But we can wait again.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2798
No matter how close you get the horse to water, the horse will just go to the typical "scientists fudge the data so they can continue to get their dinner party invites" bailout.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2799
Ninja'd. Dammit.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins