Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_huckelberry]

Franktalk,
So far you have not explained what you imagine a erosion based dating system would be. I think it is clear that such a thing simply does not exist. Such a thing simply does not work. Why would one compare confusion with some other dating system.

An irony here is that is a different sense erosion dating is the oldest most used system of looking at dating that geology has. It just is extremely inexact. It sees chunks of time of indeterminate length. Looking at erosion dating one can see some events as happening in an age before some other age. I like this subject because it is part of my enjoyment of hiking so I think in terms of local examples. The canyon closest to my home is a couple of thousand feet of canyon cut in a basalt plateau by a small stream. It is clear to me it took more than 50 thousand years to erode that canyon but exactly how long is not easy to see. How fast is it cutting now? It is not it is back filling and has been doing so for some time because water supply is insufficient to wash rock coming down the sides of the canyon out of the canyon. That points out that erosion rates vary considerable. If they vary you cannot measure numbers of years by the rate.

However I do know that the process of layering the basalt happened before the canyon was form. The basalt layers were formed before the faulting which started the canyon formation. The basalt layers were formed after the sedimentary formations it covers or surrounds in adjacent areas. This shows sequence of time heading toward old age but does not show a number of years and cannot do so.

Earlier you spoke of comparing the rate of sediment going out to sea in the Mississippi to the size of the content to determine the age of the continent.this does not work at all because you do not know the size of the continent to start with and you did not take into account the fact that the continent builds as it erodes. The process does not have a known start or end. At the same time the speed of erosion varies considerably. When the continent has high elevations water moves much more material than if the elevation are lower and gradient for flow much less steep. When water is plentiful erosion is more plentiful.

With these problems an erosion based time study does not yield dates so is not used to check dating systems. It can be used to get general ideas of very young , back an age or back a bunch of ages.

[_DrW]

An erosion-only based dating study of a given landmass, such as you asked me to find for you, could only be evaluated as to its meaning or validity by comparison of the results obtained to those provided by radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.

So we must use radiometrics to verify radiometrics. One heck of a science you have there. So what did science do before radiometrics?

It must be frustrating to you to deal with someone who just doesn't understand how factual science is at this date. I mean the nerve of someone to actually ask that some method of science be proven by alternative methods. That must be the stupidest thing you have heard in decades. But I am sure that if some scientist came up with a new way to date rocks that you would require a detailed verification with radiometrics before you would trust that new method. So I am only asking what you yourself would demand. Now if you can not see the logic in alternative method verification and it does not bother you that you are unable to find what I have asked for then just admit that you are unable to find the research I asked for. Why are you making this so complicated?

You can not find it on the web can you. Sure would be simple if you could. But then again I already knew you would not find it. I always thought science was proud of the fact that scientist check each other. Where is the check on radiometric methods? Or do we advance science with a wink and a nod these days.

Franktalk,

If you would read a bit of science instead of creationist websites, you would know that there are a wide variety of radiometric and related isotopic ratio dating methods. The Nature paper I cited uses Lead (207Pb / 206Pb) isotope ratios. Other good long period markers are the Potassium (40K) / Argon (40Ar) ratio and 87Rubidium to 87Strontium. And there is always good old Uranium (235U) to Lead (207Pb) and 238U to 206Pb, which are the only one's the creationists seem to know anything about but do not seem to understand

There are several others that are not so widely used but can serve as a check including Rhenium - 187 to Osmium 187, Thorium - 232 to Lead - 208, and Samarium -147 to Neodymium - 143.

I have not even looked for an erosion only paper because were I to find one, it would not be of no value unless the results were compared to some valid radiometric or isotopic ratio method.

Your claim that one must seriously consider erosion as a clock for geological dating when there are at least half a dozen radiometric clocks available is like saying one should check the accuracy of their wristwatch using a sundial when one has access to the USNO website (USNO Master Atomic Clock).

[_Uncle Dale]

I don't have the link, but I suggest that you contact
the Director of the Indian Institute of Geomorphologists,
at the University of Allahabad; Uttar Pradesh, India.

UD

Thank you for your response. But I am seeking a study that is already done.

No doubt such studies exist. My minor in college was Geology and my major was Physical Geography,
so I recall seeing (even back then, many years ago) a lot of data on erosion rates of certain
geologic features. If you'll take the time to seek them out, I'd suppose that you could obtain
literally thousands of pages of such reports.

The stratigraphy of the Himalayas is relatively simple -- so you wouldn't have to contend with
all the variances in mineral hardness typical of a region like the Grand Canyon.

What you would need to know is the geographic bounds of the spot on the earth you
were interested in, as well as the rock composition, angles of repose, weather conditions,
etc., for the time period you were interested in.

When we are talking about erosion of rock strata primarily accomplished by moving water,
it is necessary to know the weight, pressure, direction of movement, etc. for that hydrological
mass -- be it a constantly flowing river, an intermittent stream, the disintegrating outlet
of a huge inland lake, a river with wildly fluctuating run-off due to seasonal monsoons, etc.

During my time in Nepal, there was a lot of concern about the vegetation that protected
the rocky mountain slopes. Although vegetation contributes to rock breakdown, it also can
regulate erosion rates significantly. The acid rain falling on the hillsides where I lived was
not only harming the erosion-preventing grasses and shrubbery; the atmospheric chemicals
were also attacking the exposed rockfaces directly. Acidic runoff was speeding up the
loosening of vulnerable rock expanses, as well.

Go back a hundred years, and the rain there was probably much, much less acidic. But
go back a few thousand years and volcanic gases might have greatly changed the air
make-up, effecting the water, and thus effecting erosion.

While I lived in the Himalayas there were several major earthquakes and I heard of some
huge rockslides, subductions, etc. But, in the ancient past, there may have been long
geologic periods during which earthquake effects on rock break-up were minor.

Most of the eroded rock/soil from the Kali-Gandaki gorge eventually goes into the river
and is either carried to the ocean by the Ganges, or is deposited along the river banks
in the flatlands south of Nepal. But wind-caused erosion is also a major factor in the
carrying off of sand and dust. Some of the eroded material has ended up on the
Tibetan Plateau in the form of wind-blown loess. Since wind conditions have varied
over the millenia, their effects upon Himalayan erosion have no doubt changed from
time to time.

I'm told that really long ago, the moon was much closer to the earth and exerted a
greater pull, both upon water mass tides and upon the solid ground. The erosional
effects of lunar gravitation upon ground water may have been much greater many
millions of years ago.

Rainfall plays a huge role in Himalayan erosion rates -- so, variations in rainfall
amounts and duration could have vastly altered erosion rates in the distant past.

Since the Himalayan range is constantly uplifting, it would also be difficult to form
an erosional model which took into account the ADDED rock that Nature continually
supplies, to take the place of rock volume disappearing through erosion.

Thus, we can see that there are numerous factors which contribute to the rate
of erosion and the rate at which voids in geomorphological features are formed
and/or filled in.

I believe that some of the Indian geologists who have a vested interest in
monitoring Ganges sedimentation rates have made the necessary calculations --
but before I can begin to help you search through the scientific literature, I'll
need to know the coordinates of the landmass you are interested on, along
with the time-period you want data representing.

If I contact someone in the field they will say it is a waste of time to verify radiometric results because
we all know they are valid.

Actually, I'll predict that geomorphologists will be less interested in atomic/molecular dating, than
they will be in paleoclimatology, hydrology and mineralogy.

That is what they were taught in school. But what I want to know is when radiometric methods were first
introduced who verified the method and where is that study?

They came into scientific study over a lengthy period of time, piecemeal. As I recall, carbon-14 dating
was still a relatively new field as late as the International Geophysical Year (in 1957) and the first
Nobel prize for research in that area was awarded a few years later. So -- I'd say that 1960-2012
will be the range of years for your scientific literature search.

A simple question that so far seems impossible to answer.

There will be no single study. Rather, you'll have to sift through regional reports from a
wide variety of geographical locations, with vast variations in the mineralogy, hydrology
and meteorological conditions present in each study.

If you're looking for some generalized summary, in popular literature, then try
looking through the subject indices to "Scientific American" 1955-2010.

UD

[_Bond James Bond]

Franktalk,

Fill in the blank please:

The Earth is _________ of years old.

A) Billions
B) Millions
C) Thousands

And don't dance around like others I've seen on the 'Net. A, B, or C?

[_ludwigm]

Franktalk,

Fill in the blank please:

The Earth is _________ of years old.

A) Billions
B) Millions
C) Thousands

And don't dance around like others I've seen on the 'Net. A, B, or C?

D) Milliards.

Billion is 1 000 000 000 000

The meaning of "bi" is two - this means 2 times 6 zeroes.


The "american billion" is 1 000 000 000. Where is the two something?

[/aggravation]

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Thus, we can see that there are numerous factors which contribute to the rate
of erosion and the rate at which voids in geomorphological features are formed
and/or filled in.
...

Here is a graphic which may help us consider erosion rates:



Notice the block of rock in the picture -- it has been depicted at
four different stages in its history.

Let's say the block of rock is a mile long, by half a mile wide, by a
quarter of a mile high (above today's lowest regional ground level).
That makes it 1/8th cubic mile of stone.

As you can see, about half the volume of the stone is eroded away
between the first and the last of the four stages in its history --
or, we could say that roughly 1/16 of a cubic mile of rock is eroded.

We do not know how many thousands (or millions) of years passed
during the timespan separating stage 1 and stage 4. But we can
probably be certain that the erosion rate was not constant.

Let's say that we have the means to accurately measure the amount
of rock eroded out of that remaining 1/16th of a cubic mile of strata,
over the last 100 years. If we had that figure in front of us, could we
simply use multiplication, to work backward in 100-year-spans, until
the entire 1/16th of a cubic mile of rock was happily back in its
original place (at stage 1 of the series)?

I do not think so. At stage 4 we are left with the hardest, most erosion
resistant formations of rock. The resistance of the various features'
capstones to weathering will be the primary factor to consider. Those
features left in place at stage 4 cannot be directly compared to their
precursors that we see at stage 2. While environmental factors may
hold constant for a long period of time, the erosion resistance factor
present at stage 4 is something different than at stage 2.

The stage 4 geomorphological structures may persist for many more
hundreds of thousands of years -- or, a series of massive earthquakes
may reduce most of them to erosion-vulnerable rubble in a day.

If you know the time-span between stage 1 and stage 4, and if you
know how much rock has been eroded away, then you can calculate
an AVERAGE erosion rate, per cubic mile of rock, over a vast timespan,
perhaps. But, first of all, you'd have to have some idea of how long
that timespan was, in the first place.

Uncle Dale

[_beefcalf]

An erosion-only based dating study of a given landmass, such as you asked me to find for you, could only be evaluated as to its meaning or validity by comparison of the results obtained to those provided by radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.

So we must use radiometrics to verify radiometrics. One heck of a science you have there. So what did science do before radiometrics?

It must be frustrating to you to deal with someone who just doesn't understand how factual science is at this date. I mean the nerve of someone to actually ask that some method of science be proven by alternative methods. That must be the stupidest thing you have heard in decades. But I am sure that if some scientist came up with a new way to date rocks that you would require a detailed verification with radiometrics before you would trust that new method. So I am only asking what you yourself would demand. Now if you can not see the logic in alternative method verification and it does not bother you that you are unable to find what I have asked for then just admit that you are unable to find the research I asked for. Why are you making this so complicated?

You can not find it on the web can you. Sure would be simple if you could. But then again I already knew you would not find it. I always thought science was proud of the fact that scientist check each other. Where is the check on radiometric methods? Or do we advance science with a wink and a nod these days.

The verification of the method of radiometric dating is found in astronomy.

When a distant star has consumed the last of it's fusion fuel, depending upon it's mass, it will explode in a supernova. This explosion generates many millions of tons of radioactive isotopes which, as they decay, give off a characteristic light that can be detected using spectroscopy.

As an astronomer watches and records the 'light-curve' (brightness) of a supernova over the months (sometimes years) that it is visible, it is possible to detect the glow from those radioactive elements, such as Nickel-56, which decays into Cobalt-56, then into Iron-56.

The half-life of Nickel 56 that we can measure in our labs here on earth today is somewhere around 6 days. The half-life of Cobalt-56 is 77 days.

When the spectroscopic light-curves of supernovae are studied, we see that the half-life of Nickel and Cobalt and the myriad of other radioactive elements formed are the exact same values as we measure here on Earth.

Of course the point of this isn't that the explosion is very far away, the point is that it is very old. Measuring the light from distant supernovae which happened millions of years in the past clearly shows us that the rate of radioactive decay has not changed.

So, no. We do not "use radiometrics to verify radiometrics".

[_Franktalk]

The verification of the method of radiometric dating is found in astronomy.

When a distant star has consumed the last of it's fusion fuel, depending upon it's mass, it will explode in a supernova. This explosion generates many millions of tons of radioactive isotopes which, as they decay, give off a characteristic light that can be detected using spectroscopy.

As an astronomer watches and records the 'light-curve' (brightness) of a supernova over the months (sometimes years) that it is visible, it is possible to detect the glow from those radioactive elements, such as Nickel-56, which decays into Cobalt-56, then into Iron-56.

The half-life of Nickel 56 that we can measure in our labs here on earth today is somewhere around 6 days. The half-life of Cobalt-56 is 77 days.

When the spectroscopic light-curves of supernovae are studied, we see that the half-life of Nickel and Cobalt and the myriad of other radioactive elements formed are the exact same values as we measure here on Earth.

Of course the point of this isn't that the explosion is very far away, the point is that it is very old. Measuring the light from distant supernovae which happened millions of years in the past clearly shows us that the rate of radioactive decay has not changed.

So, no. We do not "use radiometrics to verify radiometrics".

You have drifted from what I was asking but since you bring it up then maybe you can finish this line of thought. It has been observed that radioactive decay here on earth changes over time. Since you know so much about this subject maybe you can shed some light as to why?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

If indeed the decay rate is changing and it is changing due to some fundamental part of the universe then all bets are off looking back at light telling us some kind of absolute truth. Until you know for sure why we observe what we observe you are just guessing like the rest of us.

You may feel you are on solid ground but it is a feeling. When you submit to Stanford a paper which gives definitive answers to these pressing questions then I will trust what you say.

[_beefcalf]

You have drifted from what I was asking but since you bring it up then maybe you can finish this line of thought. It has been observed that radioactive decay here on earth changes over time. Since you know so much about this subject maybe you can shed some light as to why?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

If indeed the decay rate is changing and it is changing due to some fundamental part of the universe then all bets are off looking back at light telling us some kind of absolute truth. Until you know for sure why we observe what we observe you are just guessing like the rest of us.

You may feel you are on solid ground but it is a feeling. When you submit to Stanford a paper which gives definitive answers to these pressing questions then I will trust what you say.

I have never asked for your trust, nor am I asking for your trust now. I attempt to point out to you some facts which may be relevant to your OP. You can accept them (or not) on their own merits, not upon some authority which I do not claim to have. It is up to you to decide if they are persuasive.

Concerning the Stanford article: the variations measured are regular, tiny fluctuations around a nominal value, it seems, with no overall trend up or down. There seems to be no reason to conclude that the baseline rate changes, even over vast swaths of time. Nor does there seem to be any reason to believe that the fluctuations amount to more than a tiny percentage up or down.

Let us suppose that the findings in this article are accepted by science. What effect might that have on our dating of the earth's lithosphere? Rocks dated at 4.176 billion years old will now be dated at 4.175 billion years old.

This is all part of the fine-tuning process science was built around. You apparently see it as a reason to distrust science. I see it as the exact reason why science is the only thing we can trust.

[_Franktalk]

I have never asked for your trust, nor am I asking for your trust now. I attempt to point out to you some facts which may be relevant to your OP. You can accept them (or not) on their own merits, not upon some authority which I do not claim to have. It is up to you to decide if they are persuasive.

Concerning the Stanford article: the variations measured are regular, tiny fluctuations around a nominal value, it seems, with no overall trend up or down. There seems to be no reason to conclude that the baseline rate changes, even over vast swaths of time. Nor does there seem to be any reason to believe that the fluctuations amount to more than a tiny percentage up or down.

Let us suppose that the findings in this article are accepted by science. What effect might that have on our dating of the earth's lithosphere? Rocks dated at 4.176 billion years old will now be dated at 4.175 billion years old.

This is all part of the fine-tuning process science was built around. You apparently see it as a reason to distrust science. I see it as the exact reason why science is the only thing we can trust.

I asked you why they were changing not if they are changing. It is obvious you don't have an answer as to why. Yet you assume that when someone does come across a theory as to why it is changing you somehow feel confident that what you feel is true today will not change. I don't share your feelings on this matter. It has been my observation that science does not stand still and it goes into uncharted territory throughout its history. So I feel that it will happen again. You feel that things will not change. I do believe history is on my side, if we were to bet on this issue. But of course neither of us knows for sure.

When I see something new I tend to see what it may effect and then cast those prior truths into question. I don't hang onto old foundations if there is any indication that there are cracks in that foundation. From what you just wrote it appears you are happy not knowing why things are observed the way they are and you are confident that things will not change. I will state that with your attitude science would have ground to a halt a long time ago. Thank God, and I do mean God, that some among us refuse to settle so easily.

Here is a little something I hold as true.

"With Feyerabend Kuhn discussed a draft of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which was published in 1962 in the series “International Encyclopedia of Unified Science”, edited by Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap. The central idea of this extraordinarily influential—and controversial—book is that the development of science is driven, in normal periods of science, by adherence to what Kuhn called a ‘paradigm’. The functions of a paradigm are to supply puzzles for scientists to solve and to provide the tools for their solution. A crisis in science arises when confidence is lost in the ability of the paradigm to solve particularly worrying puzzles called ‘anomalies’. Crisis is followed by a scientific revolution if the existing paradigm is superseded by a rival. Kuhn claimed that science guided by one paradigm would be ‘incommensurable’ with science developed under a different paradigm, by which is meant that there is no common measure for assessing the different scientific theories. This thesis of incommensurability, developed at the same time by Feyerabend, rules out certain kinds of comparison of the two theories and consequently rejects some traditional views of scientific development, such as the view that later science builds on the knowledge contained within earlier theories, or the view that later theories are closer approximations to the truth than earlier theories."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

I agree that the assumption that science is built upon and is not changed is not true. How do you FEEL about this?