|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2005 : 15:29:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When cells in this cambium layer divide they produce phloem cells on the outside and xylem cells on the inside. The phloem cells transport sugars throughout the tree. The xylem cells serve as a series of very narrow collection of pipes allowing water to climb to the leaves and evaporate.
It appears that you're right about every layer dying, but the inner layers still transport water all the way up to the leaves. Does this not affect the radiocarbon present? I also have a book at home that says something about nutrients being transported through the medulary rays, which run through the heart of the tree. I'll see if I can get an exact quote.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 19:15:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
It appears that you're right about every layer dying, but the inner layers still transport water all the way up to the leaves. Does this not affect the radiocarbon present?
Why should it? Does water contain carbon? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 20:18:19 [Permalink]
|
Hippy is suggesting that water can transport carbon-based molecules from the ground into the tree, and also from the heart of the tree out to the leaves, thus possibly skewing any radiocarbon dating of the inner rings v. the outer, as has been done in radiocarbon calibrations.
However, it seems obvious to me (having seen a couple calibration plots from trees), that it's definitely not the case that all rings in a tree have the same carbon age, and that there doesn't appear to be a method whereby the flowing water could distinguish between C12 and C14 in order to change the ratio within the tree.
Such water flow would only change both isotopes, in the same proportions as they existed in the atmosphere. And that won't make the tree date younger or older than it really was. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 16:17:01 [Permalink]
|
Mab:
Doesn't rain form around particles in the air?
Dave:
I'm not suggesting that the entire tree would have one date, simply that the dates in each ring would be affected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my hypothetical situation (using simplified numbers): you have a tree ring, c12:c14 ratio is 5000:10. You also have a mammal buried (for some reason or another) and preserved in the same general area. A few hundred years pass, during which time the tree absorbs rainwater which also has a 5000:10 ratio. The rain doesn't reach the mammal. Let's say by this time c12:c14 in the mammal is 5000:8. Wouldn't the tree ring, which has been absorbing 5000:10 rainwater, have a ratio of 10000:18, or, 5000:9? (Or something similar) If my hypothesis is correct, the tree ring's radiocarbon would decay, but fresh carbon/radiocarbon would continuously be introduced; whereas the mammal's radiocarbon would only decay.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 19:55:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Mab:
Doesn't rain form around particles in the air?
The water will of course to some extent be polluted by other matter. But the ratio between water and the pollution that made the drop form, what is that? 1000:1 or more?
I suggest that pollutants that small follow the water up to the leaves. Otherwise the trunk would get blocked up with pollutions, making the tree die. It's not like the trunk is a big pipe filled with water. The capillaries in the trunk that transport water only make up a fraction of the volume and mass of the trunk, which is mostly cellulose (carbon). If a percent or two of organic matter clog up the trunk while it's transporting water, it's change in radiocarbon ratio will still hardly register when the inherent inaccuracy of the final measurement is calculated. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 22:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my hypothetical situation (using simplified numbers): you have a tree ring, c12:c14 ratio is 5000:10. You also have a mammal buried (for some reason or another) and preserved in the same general area. A few hundred years pass, during which time the tree absorbs rainwater which also has a 5000:10 ratio. The rain doesn't reach the mammal. Let's say by this time c12:c14 in the mammal is 5000:8. Wouldn't the tree ring, which has been absorbing 5000:10 rainwater, have a ratio of 10000:18, or, 5000:9? (Or something similar) If my hypothesis is correct, the tree ring's radiocarbon would decay, but fresh carbon/radiocarbon would continuously be introduced; whereas the mammal's radiocarbon would only decay.
Well, the main assumptions here are that water transports carbon compounds into trees, and the inner structural parts of trees can trap significant amounts of water-born carbon compounds.
Just thinking about the second part, one might think that if dead wood can trap carbon, most of the carbon coming into a tree via the water sucked in by the roots would be "filtered" out by the bottom portion of the tree. Ensuring that C14 dating samples are a fair height above the ground could - if such is the case - ensure a unadulterated test.
However - and this is the first important point - if your ideas are correct, it would mean that inner tree rings would date younger than they actually are. A large living tree we know, from ring-counting, to be so-many years old would, at its center, date younger than that by some percentage, whereas a sapling which died in the same year the big tree sprouted would date correctly. Such anomalies would litter the documentation about dating trees and wooden artifacts, if they occured.
This, of course, assumes that we're not the first people to think of these issues. Given that the practice has been followed for some decades, it would be naïve to think we are. Someone has addressed this issue already.
The second important point is, of course, that dead trees don't transport water. The outer layers of a tree should date correctly no matter what. Combining just outer-layer C14 dating with ring counting would give us accurate calibration data, even if the inner layers date young. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 16:53:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Yes, the ring date would be read as younger. Let's say you have a ring chronology and an item matches the 700th ring. You would think that the item is about 700 years old, but if my hypothesis is correct, the ring has a younger c14 age than it should, and is actually older than the item. Therefore, the item is less than 700 years old.
quote:
This, of course, assumes that we're not the first people to think of these issues. Given that the practice has been followed for some decades, it would be naïve to think we are. Someone has addressed this issue already.
Okay then, let's see if anyone else has discussed this. Another thing to think about: could water moving through the trunk transport already-present radiocarbon from one ring to another?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 01/22/2005 17:45:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 19:04:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Yes, the ring date would be read as younger. Let's say you have a ring chronology and an item matches the 700th ring. You would think that the item is about 700 years old, but if my hypothesis is correct, the ring has a younger c14 age than it should, and is actually older than the item. Therefore, the item is less than 700 years old.
Right, but what I was saying was that it's undoubtable that people have C14 dated books from around 1305. There would be tons of literature about inner tree rings dating earlier than they should, if the C14 dates of a 1305 book and a 700-year-old tree ring (in a live tree) differed by a significant amount. But the web sites we've both found describing how tree rings are used to calibrate atmospheric C14 levels mention nothing of the sort.quote:
Okay then, let's see if anyone else has discussed this.
Unfortunately, I'm short on time this week. Seriously.quote:
Another thing to think about: could water moving through the trunk transport already-present radiocarbon from one ring to another?
Better to answer the first question first: can water transport carbon compounds from outside to inner tree rings of a living tree? And I'm guessing, from the lack of discussion of what would be a serious problem, that it doesn't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 13:33:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
There would be tons of literature about inner tree rings dating earlier than they should, if the C14 dates of a 1305 book and a 700-year-old tree ring (in a live tree) differed by a significant amount.
For one thing, I think that it's bad investigative technique to assume that there is no problem because nobody talks about the possible problem . Now, we know that many, if not most, radiocarbon ages give a range of hundreds of years. If you have a book with the date 1305 written on it and you get a radiocarbon date of between 1230 and 1480, then everyone will agree that that is an accurate date. However if the tree ring calibration is to young then the radiocarbon date should be, say, 1175-1425. Either way, the dates are acceptable, and no problem is detected. But when you start working with something that's thousands of years old and doesn't have a date written on it then even if the c14 date is off by hundreds of years you wouldn't know it.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 13:49:29 [Permalink]
|
When you find evidence that trees can store extra carbon by water flow before or after death, let me know, but FYI in most cases they test more than one thing to verify dates, using many different methods.
I forget what are we doing here? Young earth again? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 19:07:16 [Permalink]
|
| If we date something to 11000 years, even with an inaccurracy of 1000 years, the Bible is still shot to hell... (pun intended) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 20:05:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For one thing, I think that it's bad investigative technique to assume that there is no problem because nobody talks about the possible problem .
With scientific issues, there are several possible reason why nobody talks about something:
A) There is no issue.
B) The issue is well-known, already corrected and/or very small.
C) Nobody knows about the issue.
D) There is an active conspiracy among all scientists to suppress the issue.
I know you're not talking about D. And my thought is that "carbon shifting" in trees (or CSIT, as I'll call it now) belongs to category A or B. Category C, given that radiocarbon dating is such a fantastic tool, is really out there, as nearly every radiocarbon date is another verification data point.
Look, what you're proposing is this: We plant some saplings now. 1,000 of them, numbered 1 to 1,000. Next year, we kill sapling #1, and put it in a gigantic freezer. The year after that, we kill sapling #2 and put it in the freezer. (When does a sapling become a tree, anyway?) The year after, tree #3. Then #4, #5, etc., one tree per year. (This assumes, of course, that they all live.)
After 1,000 year, we C14 date the center of each tree. #1 should date 1,000 years (plus or minus some amount). And I'm maintaining that the cores of trees 2 through 1,000 will also date 1,000 years old (plus or minus the same amount).
You're suggesting that tree #2 will date slightly younger than tree #1. And tree #3 slightly younger than #2. And so on, until we date tree #1,000 and find it to be the "youngest" one of them all.
But if the difference is noticable (large, like the 55-year difference in your example), and predictable (in that 500-year-old trees always date 55 years too young, for example), then people would have noticed it. Lots of trees from all sorts of different decades (and all sorts of different ages) have been dated.
Because this line is where you're wrong:quote:
Either way, the dates are acceptable, and no problem is detected.
Problems would be detected because the average age is 55 years off.
We know there are "problems" with radiocarbon dating. It's why there exist calibration tables, and well-known issues like dating plants which lived near volcanos, or the sequestered-carbon ages of marine molluscs. The problem you're suggesting is no different from those, really, unless you intend to suggest that it's extremely subtle (like 5 years instead of 55), in which case you're arguing something which is way smaller than the errors, anyway.quote:
But when you start working with something that's thousands of years old and doesn't have a date written on it then even if the c14 date is off by hundreds of years you wouldn't know it.
But only the length of the tree's life matter to the problem you're suggesting. How long ago it died will make no difference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 20:21:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(When does a sapling become a tree, anyway?)
Good question. It would seem its not a question of when, but of how big; which I assumes varies by conditions and species.
Main Entry: sapling
Pronunciation: 'sa-pli[ng], -pl&n
Function: noun
1 : a young tree; specifically : one not over four inches in diameter at breast height
(And here I never even knew trees had breasts  ) |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/09/2005 23:17:25 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2005 : 12:43:26 [Permalink]
|
Big Papa Smurf: Actually we're attempting to establish whether or not the timeframe of the biblical event of the tower of Babel can be shown to be inaccurate by the evidence that currently exists. So at the moment I am calling into question c14 dates circa 4000-5000 years ago. Although I would really like to get Cuneiformist back here and see if we can come up with a more complete site of king-years or king-lists. That would probably be a lot simpler than the whole radiocarbon thing.
Dr. Mabuse: I'll deal with that when we're done with this thread, if we ever get done.
Dave: When I deal with matters of disproving a faith I usually don't concern myself with what is likely, but with what is possible. Hence, I am not going to discount the possibility that no scientist has dealt with this issue. Nor will I discount the much less likely possibility that some senior scientists are covering up the problem from the rest of the scientific body. I recently found out that the library I'm in has a whole bunch of Radiocarbon journals, and they have sections on calibration, so I'm going to go over them and see if they have anything that pertains to the subject. And by the way, I found that quote I was looking for:
"Carpentry" Gaspar J. Lewis 1984 p.2 "The roots absorb water which passes upward through the sapwood to the leaves where it is combined with carbon dioxide from the air. Sunlight causes these materials to change into food which is then carried down and distributed toward the center of the trunk through the medullary rays."
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 02/11/2005 12:44:45 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2005 : 19:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nor will I discount the much less likely possibility that some senior scientists are covering up the problem from the rest of the scientific body.
As if C14 dating were some secret where only a few people controlled information concerning it....
Why is it that you think there aren't plenty of scientists out there who would LOVE to make a name for themselves by providing solid evidence that a MAJOR premise in dating techniques was horribly flawed?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
