Carbon 14 and the Biblical Timescale for Planet Earth

[Mike PSS]

CORRECTED MASS BALANCE FORMULA FOR BROWN'S POST-FLOOD C14

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... uzLbz5NCew

This spreadsheet corrects Mike PSS's failure to account for the time delay and small amount of C14 migration from the Ocean Mixed Surface Layer (MSL) to the Deep Ocean (DO).

WRONG!
Your whole set-up is a mess Dave. Your almost making as many mistakes as Brown, but not quite (at least your trying to track mass flow quantities of which Brown doesn't even attempt. Which is why Brown is wrong.)

My spreadsheets DO account for the time delay because they INCLUDE the total mass of the environments we are studying. Those total mass quantities, along with the mass flux's, are what create the time delay.

I thought you knew that? I guess not. Well, here's your one take home item for today. To model a time delay, include both the mass flux AND the total mass of an environment in your model.

This spreadsheet is preliminary and further refinements could be made by showing the other "boxes" in the UB, instead of just the Atmosphere box.

So......
You have a spreadsheet that has the wrong flows AND doesn't represent ALL the environment.
And your going to continue this exercise to actually make cogent conclusions?
You have gall Dave. Enough to sour one of the Great Lakes.

The effect of including these would be that 40% of the Atmospheric C14 gets exchanged with the Terrestrial Biosphere (TB). Assuming that the C14 concentration of the TB is close to that of the Atmosphere, this effect on calculations should be minimal.

Why not just use my model. Either version 2 (the Schmitz CARBON balance) or version 3 (the modified Schmitz with Hesshaimer terrestrial biosphere additions). They already account for the Terrestrial Biosphere.

[EDIT: Mike's assumption that the DO C14 concentration of 80% of the UB is used. The MSL would also be at a lesser % than the UB (90% maybe), but this is not modeled in these equations for simplicity.]

Thank you Dave for FINALLY agreeing to one of my assumptions. From here on I can clearly state this starting condition without asking for your approval.

Only the first 1125 years post flood is included in this spreadsheet because of file size considerations with Google Docs.

Why not include 5 years of production and decay per line. That way we could get 5,625 years and REALLY see if Brown's theory holds up.

The equilibrium UB C14 ends up at about 4600 kg if you carry the SS all the way down to 0 Years BP, with equilibrium being achieved within the first 1700 years as Brown says. Changing the Delta % of the DO from 0.24% to 0.20% (a reasonable possibility, given the TB discussion above) gives you about 5600 kg at Year 0 BP, which is the present approximation for the UB.

So Dave, let me get this straight.
Your saying that to gauge movement of C14 from the atmosphere to surrounding environments ALL we have to do is multiply by the percentages formed by mass flow divided by total environment mass.
Every Year.
Year in and year out.
And keep adding production to the atmosphere.
And forget to include the terrestrial biosphere.
And forget to include the C14 transferred to the MO.
And forget to calculate C14 ratios every year.
And, and, and....... YOU WANT TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS?

CONCLUSIONS
What have we achieved with this little exercise? [s]Several things. First, I have shown elsewhere (Formal Debate Area) that there are many evidences that the Global Flood, recorded in hundreds of cultural histories of the world, actually occurred. If it did actually occur, we would expect, among other things, to find a huge amount of buried flora and fauna. And we do find this (See Brown's 1979 paper). We would also expect that many fossilized organic remains would have very low C14 compared to modern ratios. And we do find this. We would also expect to find detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds (RATE Group Experiments 2005). And we do find this. This finding alone throws out the entire conventional deep time scale. We would also expect to find discrepancies such as the musk ox example given earlier. (Someone tried to discredit this, but they were confusing this example with a different, questionable example.)

And finally, I have shown that given the data above, and if my calculations are sound, then physicist R.H. Brown's Carbon 14 model given in his 1994 paper is accurate, that is, as accurate it can be given the inherent inaccuracies of global C14 inventory and formation rate estimates. Brown's model accounts not only for the global non-equilibrium that Libby acknowledged in the 1950's, but also accounts for the present Upper Biosphere equilibrium of ~5600 kg C14, and the relatively rapid achievement of this equilibrium (~1700 years after the Flood).

Therefore, as Brown says, C14 dates for the past 3000 calibrated in various ways should be fairly trustworthy. However, for dates beyond these, Brown's correction table (given earlier on this thread).[/s]

There's your conclusion Dave. Do you want to know why?

Let's look at your little math contest in the spreadsheet. You say the following.

20% (150 GT) of the atmosphere is exchanged every year

O.K. So we have a percentage of the TOTAL CARBON in the atmosphere. Next?

60% (90 GT) of this gets exchanged with the Ocean Mixed Surface Layer (MSL)

O.K. So 60% of the 20% is 12%. So what? We ALREADY have this mass flow in place in my model.

10% of MSL carbon (~100 GT / 1000 GT) gets exchanged with the Deep Ocean (DO)

Ummmm.....
Dave.....
What about the C14 that moves into the MO?
IF you include the MO in your single atmosphere box, THEN you cannot discriminate between atmosphere to MO to DO mass flux. You will ONLY have one mass flux, between the atmosphere and the DO.

OR you can use the MO as a seperate environment, but you have to track the MO C14 quantities seperate from the atmosphere too.

You CAN'T have it both ways here. That's mathematically incorrect.

Remember that big, long post about the Schmitz model? Where I explained the fundamental reasons behind lumping models and environemts?

Well, you should reread that post to see why you can't do what your trying to do in your spreadsheet.

Delta C14do = C14atm X 20% X 60% X 10% X 20% = 0.24%

Dave?
Where did that last 20% term appear from?
Did you confuse things again?

And what about the C14 that moves into the MO, and TB. I think your spreadsheet is lacking some specificity. It's really confusing and not at all user freandly. And as Voxrat has said, lacks units.

ONE MORE THING

Groannnn....

If my latest calculations stand up to scrutiny (Mike's that is),

They do not, so no conclusions can be made about your results.

I think this exercise will serve as a lesson [s]to all anti-creationists who so often jump to conclusions[/s] that creationists don't know what they are doing.

That's funny Dave. Almost quote-mine sig worthy.

If Mike cannot refute this latest post of mine (and I don't think he can, but I would be foolish not to admit the outside chance), then I anticipate moving on to what everyone wants to hear about ... Calibration Curves.

Your tempting me to "give up" here aren't you?
Well, not quite yet. Your latest spreadsheet is worse than your first one.
Jumbled terms, forgotten environments, mixed and mashed numbers, simplifications that are meaningless.

This paper deserves an F.

[Mike PSS]

Dave,
Your spreadsheet tries to use a two box model, but your math assumes a four box model. This is the type of model creation that Brown uses. Shifting terms, unassigned numbers and values, vague references and biased assertions.
And you butcher the math horribly.

I'm disappointed in you Dave.

[Mike PSS]

O.K. Dave's latest attempt at spreadsheet manipulation is a joke.

Does someone have a website up and running (NOT Dave) that I can send the spreadsheet over and you can post it up for reference?

I don't like the google sheet since you can't see the cells, just the numbers.

[VoxRat]

I don't have a website for you...
but if you do post it somewhere, could you label your columns, define your units, etc. like Dave didn't?

[BobbyBigWheel]

Does someone have a website up and running (NOT Dave) that I can send the spreadsheet over and you can post it up for reference?

I don't like the google sheet since you can't see the cells, just the numbers.

I can, PM me...

[Mike PSS]

I don't have a website for you...
but if you do post it somewhere, could you label your columns, define your units, etc. like Dave didn't?

Yes, I'll include units. Just like your supposed to do when presenting data.

[gladiatrix]

Even Gladiatrix, who normally is pretty sciency' has descended into comparing me to Charles Manson's lawyer. Pitiful.

Like others have pointed out, Irving Kanarek's tactics defending Manson are no different from you own here and elsewere. A classic example of this is what I call your "Grand Canyon Moment".

Here on pg. 211 of the Flood Debate Comment thread you call this your "GRAND CANYON ROCK FORMATION IDENTIFICATION TEST". The fact is that you lied about the pictures and when caught on it, tried to deny, then justify this despicable tactic for the better part of 7 pages. Here are just TWO posts from Faid and Mung Bean objecting to this gambit:

1. Mung Bean,Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:26 pm

2. Faid,Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:58

Sure looks like a whole lot of "Kanarekin'-going'on" (objecting, bobbing-n-weaving, on your part) to me.

Now there's your fave, the quote-mine, again a case on point, your continued, callous, deliberate abuse of the work of Derek Ager. I don't hesitate in characterizing this behavior as both callous and deliberate because you've been caught and called down on it a number of times and you STILL persist in doing your bit of "Lying-For-Jesus". It it quite obvious that you don't care if others find you out, you're going to do it anyway (what better example of the definition of "callous" can there be). My posts detailing your BS in this regard:

1. Tue May 01, 2007 3:25 am

2. Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:23 am

3. Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:36 pm (this one contains links to DM's excellent post which thoroughly show Dave's use of Ager's work to be a complete fraud

4. Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:39 am

What is especially despicable IMO is WHEN you are caught and the evidence presented that you have misused and abused Ager's work, you resort to disparaging the man's character and also manage to impune the integrity of the entire scientific community. Here's just your most recent venture into one of your favorite fallacies, i.e., poisoning-the-well:


afdave1, Tue May 08, 2007 12:15 pm

Constant Mews...
Dave has already been presented with the evidence that Ager considers creationists to be cretins of the very highest order, and that he explicitly denies anything that creationists claim.

The observant reader will note that what one thinks of people has little to do with the truth or falsehood of their claims. The careful scientist is wise to separate his feelings from the data. It is clear from reading Ager that he rails against creationists, not because he has any specific disagreements with the points they make, but because he dislikes their religion and is afraid of what would happen to his career, should people start associating him with them.

What is laughable here is that you manage to lie here too, because Ager most definitely DOES DISAGREE with the claims of young-earth creationism, in particular he does NOT give any credence your version of "catastrophe", i.e., a global flood.

• DO QUOTE HIM WHERE HE INCLUDES THE YEC FLOOD ON THE LIST OF CATASTROPHES, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME (except to complain bitterly about how creationists like you completely twist his work)
• Do show us where he or ANY mainstream scientist uses any "research" by any YEC from any paper, ever. IOW substantiate your claim that Ager/other geologists are mightly influence by the works of YECs. (they would have to give them credit in the work and in the reference list, come on a put the evidence where your mouth is)

You know damn well that when Ager uses the word "catastrophe", his meaning and your meaning are miles apart. Your only recourse is to malign the man's character

• by implying that he's can't "separate his feelings from the data"
• as good as call him a intellectual coward with this "gem":

  It is clear from reading Ager that he rails against creationists, not because he has any specific disagreements with the points they make, but because he dislikes their religion and is afraid of what would happen to his career, should people start associating him with them.

• Now the above insult also denegrates the integrity of the entire scientific community by because you also imply that they would be "out to get him" (ruin his career) if he dared to tell the "TRUTHâ„¢" (as spun by your YEC GoebbelsSpeakmachine). The implication is VERY PLAIN that other scientists are no really interested in finding out the truth, but in protecting an "agenda" and won't hestitate to hound/ruin anyone who dare tell the Truthâ„¢(according to DaveWorld). Ager, of course, won't because according to you, he's "spineless" (see my posts above) and "afraid for his career".

Where's your evidence that any of the things you allege above are in fact, TRUE? If you can't substantiate these allegations with evidence, then it ranks as nothing but the slanderous drivel from you, trying to put the best possible "face" on being caught lying (AGAIN).

The point here is that you and Kanarek's tactics don't differ in the slightest (all one has to do is read any of the transcript of the Manson trial to see that). My point stands and on the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words:



Here's another "graphic" illustration of what I think of that despicable behavior as well.



I see that Mike has dissected your spreadsheet yet again. I look forward to a look at his spreadsheet (yours, dave, was a bit of a jumble and a mess). What other "objections" [your Honor, I object (for the umpteenth time)!] will you come up with to avoid

• the realization that your/Brown's (? looks like it's "morphed" into a form that Brown wouldn't recognize) model is worthless
• having to deal with those CALIBRATION CURVES that make you/Brown's claims/model nothing but a flight of fantasy from the get-go.

"Object" away, dave, but do realize that we see this sort of manuvering for what it really is, nothing but an attempt to avoid having to fact the FAT LADY (you claim to know her, Dave, her name's EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE).

(edited to close tag, fix link)

[JOZeldenrust]

Though I agree with the rest of your post, I don't think it's fair to even imply that Dubya has any sympathy for the Nazis. He may have failed to grasp any of the moral lessons that could be learned from WWII that weren't directly related to Jews, but he's not a Nazi, nor do I think he wishes to be.

This is like evangelical Christians making cartoons implying that Satan is behind science. Splinters and motes, even Christians sometimes have things to say that are worth saying.

[Mike PSS]

Does someone have a website up and running (NOT Dave) that I can send the spreadsheet over and you can post it up for reference?

I don't like the google sheet since you can't see the cells, just the numbers.

I can, PM me...

Thanks for the help Bob.....
errr...... (I can't resist)....

Mr. Fuzzy Wuzzy Cutie Wootie Wittle Polar Bwear.

[ericmurphy]

O.K. Dave's latest attempt at spreadsheet manipulation is a joke.

Does someone have a website up and running (NOT Dave) that I can send the spreadsheet over and you can post it up for reference?

I don't like the google sheet since you can't see the cells, just the numbers.

If it's a one-page kinda thingie, I can post it as a PDF.