70 meters+, in Son Doong Cave, Vietnam
Why would you assume the ones you didn’t measure are fast growers?
The longest stalactite is ~30 meters. The tallest stalagmite is 67 meters. The longest column (a stalactite and stalagmite that have joined in the middle) is 61.5 meters. These could only be used to date the caves that they are in, not the age of the earth. But the ages would serve to give you a minimum age for the earth.
Using your growth rate for stalactites, the 30 meter stalactite would take about 230,769 years. Are you aiming to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old?
No it doesn’t mean that, and looking at the average gives you a completely misleading impression. You can tell how fast a tree has grown by looking at the rings inside.
first- can you give the reference? thanks.
we will see this later.
Try Google. Took me about 5 seconds to find it.
2 Likes
i think i found it (i have other source but lets say its true). now- 30 mt stalactite is the upper limit. but remember that it isnt the average. according to wiki some stalactite can growth in 3mm per year. or a 18 meter for about 6000 years stalactite. so this one in this rate is about 10,000 years old (and remember that its only an upper average and not the maximum). its actually fit well with a young earth.
If you take the length and divide by the maximum grown rate (a special case per Wikipedia) you end up with a lower bound on the age. The actual age will be GREATER than that. So by your calculation the earth has to be older than 10,000 years and this is ignoring all of the other factors that could influence the length of the stalactite.
Also, 30 meters is not the upper limit. What about the stalagmites that are over 60 meters tall? Or the columns that are 60+ meters tall. With these you are looking at ages in excess of 460,000 years.
To date the earth based on a stalactite you would have to show that the cave and stalactite has existed since the creation and it has been growing constantly since then. The problem is that caves can “die” when the source of the water that forms the stalactites dries up. So you might have a 10,000 year old stalactite, but it may have been “dead” for an unknown period of time or it may have stopped growning during periods when there was no water flowing and so it is older then 10,000 years.
1 Like
While stalactite ages may only by roughly estimated by their lengths, they can be more precisely dated by radioisotope measurements. I don’t understand the dcscccc’s purpose of finagling ‘average’ growth rates and ‘average’ lengths to date caves. First, it’s specious argument as every commentator has noted. Second, the ages of many stalactites have been more accurately measured via radioisotopes. Those dates are frequently outside YEC timelines.
1 Like
stalagmites grow faster then stalactites. so because this reason i talk about stalactite.
so how is that possible that most of stalactites caves are about no more then 10,000 years old only (according to stalactites growth rate)? is this just a coincidence?
but the whole discussion is about radiometric vs stalactite growth rate.
You haven’t tried comparing radiometric dating of stalactites with their lengths or growth rates. You’ve only asserted that all stalactites, regardless of their lengths, must be less than 10K years old, despite evidence to the contrary.
Here’s a link that provides an overview for how growth rates and ages of stalactites are measured.
1 Like
Actually since stalagmites spread out over the floor they grow in height more slowly than stalactites grow in length. Which is the real reason you don’t want to talk about them.
Using your numbers I have already shown that stalactites are older than 10,000 years. Nothing you have said places an upper bound of 10,000 years for all stalactites.
1 Like
of course. because the whole discussion is about the validity of this method. so you cant gave it as evidence for your claim.
its again gave an evidence from a radiometric methods.
if its true then why the tallest stalactites are by far lower than the tallest stalagmites? do you have any reference for a stalagmites growth rate?
where?
dcsccc, the average stalactite growth rates you cite were determined by radioisotope measurements of the layers in stalactites. It’s been noted ad infinitum that stalactite growth rates make a terrible clock because of inherent variability. One can cut a stalactite and see the different thicknesses of layers. Deposition is subject the variable climatic conditions which can be far from constant. Stalactite length is simply a terrible proxy on which to assess absolute dating.
Yet despite that, there are many stalactites whose lengths fall far outside the range you’d expect for a young Earth. You’ve not been able to dismiss that data.
Further, measurements of oxygen isotopes in the various layers have demonstrated utility as a proxy for the local climate at the time the layers were formed and these measurements correlate with climatic cycles well in excess of YEC assumptions. Finally, radioisotope measurement which has been demonstrated to be a far more reliable and better proxy for absolute ages and for which there is extensive control and chemical validation, can date the individual stalactite layers and cave ages for periods well in excess of young earth scenarios.
To summarize, you have spent much of this discussion trying to justify the use of a method which yields terrible absolute ages, poor relative ages even for stalactites in the same cave, and has known but uncontrollable variability due to environmental conditions. You have additionally not suggested a means of assessing the ages of many tall cave stalactites which would indicate great ages. All these considerations show the reason why scientists who’ve studied caves don’t use stalactite length as a proxy of absolute age. It’s poor science.
Do you believe that you’re making an argument against radioisotope dating methods that people will readily accept as logical and well thought out? I just don’t see it.
2 Likes
@dcscccc, I’d just like to add here, do you understand why people find your arguments unconvincing? As I read this thread, I just see you repeating the same claims over and over again – claims that don’t even make sense – and not adding anything new to the discussion.
1 Like
I don’t know where you are getting your data on the lengths of speleothems. Perhapes you need to provide a link to your data source.
http://www.barlang.hu/pages/science/angol/CG2001_191.pdf
The growth rates measured in this paper range from 0.03 mm/year to 1.6 mm/year. The paper also addresses the variables that can change the growth rate. Since these variables can not be determined you cannot use a single growth rate to “date” a stalactite by it’s length.
The actual age would be GREATER that the calculation because the actual growth rate will be LESS than the one you used. You can not prove that the MAXIMUM growth rate is the correct one to use.
2 Likes
if so how did you explain that most of stalactites are so small and fit with a young earth like i have showed?
do you think that a method that can be wrong in a factor of about 10^9 is a scientific method?
here:
we can take the average. and the average is again about 0.1 mm per year. and again- its fit well with a young earth.
Yes, if the discrepancy is admitted and all possible reasons for it are explored.
What is not a scientific method is to reject possible reasons for the discrepancy as “rescuing devices” without showing that these reasons are in conflict with the data.
Another departure from the scientific method is to claim that this discrepancy falsifies findings where there is no discrepancy, without showing that the cause of the discrepancy is applicable in both cases.
So a 67.2 m stalagmite (your source) growing at 0.1 mm per year (your rate) gives an age of 672,000 years and this fits with a young earth?
1 Like