Age Correlations and an Old Earth

I kind of hear you, proportionally though wouldn't the solutes over time via the capillary pressures move solute concentrations upward because the water solutes in the above varves would have less concentrations because less would of been dissolved from the organics, like given that solutes are always trying to equalize solutes ionic concentrations, like where eventually, dissolving C12/C14 into the waters above the varves to be assimulated by upper varve organics, then eventually, cause solutes seek to equalize, slowly leaching upward to the algae/fish, growing within the waters above..P.S. What I'm trying to say is leaching might be affecting proportionally the accuracy of the dating methods, as these solutes are changing the concentrations upward affecting the accuracy of your dating methodologies, etc...I think it was Steve Austin or Andrew Snelling (perhaps both) that talked about leaching affecting the accuracy of the different dating methodologies. If you don't feel leeching affects the accuracy of the C-14 dating methods because of proportional leaching then that makes Snellings Mineralized Wood fossil younger than the basalt that entombed the petrified wood fossil, bringing into question the accuracy of the other dating methodologies, etc...

This might make a fun new thread sometime: what documentation is there for this tremendous increase in earthquake frequency that fundies go on about? How much of the "increase" d'ya think might have to do with the invention and continuing improvement of the seismometer? Hmmm? More of Walt's bullshit......
Where was the heat sink to remove all that heat of fusion of all this fountain water that turned to ice? Or the heat sink to cool it from 700 F to 32 so it could start to freeze? Did angels carry off the heat, or did the vacuum of the exosphere do it?

I would think it because of how far the atmosphere likely extended, lots of space available for heat to dissapate, like the bible also talks about the windows of heaven being opened, it talks about the waters above and below the firmament kjv genesis 1:7(creationists believe a water canopy above) and below(the fountains of the deep) the "open" firmament the birds of the heavens flew within (kjv genesis 1:20.P.S. If the fountains of the deep erupted from within the earth it brought within it, sediments that would of been within the glaciers that via the hydroplate theory formed suddenly, and within the bear lake study, its inferences is that glacial meltings would of affected sediment layerings, etc...

Back on topic or off the thread!Offer clear reasons for any conclusions you want to arrive at with supporting evidence. No "could have", "might have", "maybes".Do not use Walt unless he directly speaks of correlations.These are not suggestions. If you want to keep posting here then stick to them.

thank you.To say nothing of those same points were raised by whatever on other threads and the criticism of them was not dealt with then either.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ned, Thought I was using would haves, not could haves, and my last post was it not re-directed to post 169, the bear lake study, which would affect the correlations interpretations since the glaciers melted, before annual varve sedimentary layerings, after the glaciers melted, etc...The leaching posts would of affected the correlations vertically too, etc... I really don't have much more to contribute, to this thread, other than the leaching problems, and the bear lake study, etc...P.S. I'm still looking forward to your evidence that glaciers lowered the oceans, within the flood sorting thread, etc...

What does this have to do with anything? My involvment with that was simply pointing out a mis reading that someone had gotten caught in.

Ned, I thought you were going to look for evidences for sea level lowerings via glaciation, helping the person you were responding too, etc...?, I didn't see any evidence, by anyone to support evidence from those two posts that the glaciers lowered the oceans, perhaps your in agreement then that there is no evidence the glaciers had any effect on the lowering of the oceans, only in the raising in their melting, etc...P.S. The reason I was interested cause via the flood model, glaciation happened suddenly, the pleistocene extinction fossil evidences, etc... so was kind of interested in evidence to the contrary, though pleased to see their will be no evidence forthcoming, etc...I mean those Pacific Seamounts discovered by Princeton University geologist H.H. Hess in the 1940's, mentioned by Rachael Carson in her book the Sea Around us written in 1950's, that they are over 1/2 mile under the wave base, supporting evidence in the natural that the oceans rose upward's, or the oceans floor settled, supporting evidences confirming psalm 104:6-10, that the waters rushed off the face of the earth to the place prepared by God for them (the oceans), etc...This message has been edited by whatever, 07-07-2004 10:37 PM

AND which you raised previously, AND they were refuted then. With nothing new it is dishonest to try to post the same thing as new information.Nothing you have presented addresses the question of why they all correlate -- your information is only designed (by creatortionistas) to discredit various dating methods, but does not address the question of why exactly the same result are obtained from the different methods. Perhaps you don't understand what correlation means:
Correlation Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Either the first or the second definition will do. In essence it comes down to simultaneous change in value of dates between each of the dating methods.If
dating method #1 gives ABCDEFGHIJLLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
then
dating method #2 gives ABCDEFGHIJLLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
and
dating method #3 gives ABCDEFGHIJLLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
and
dating method #4 gives ABCDEFGHIJLLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
etcand for anything that causes an error to occur in dating method #1 there must be simultaneous identical errors in the other dating methods such that they not only cause similar error but the exact same kind of error for both age and climate.Your model for the arctic ice cannot be true because it only affects one method and cannot have any effect on the others. This has been the problem with all your efforts.Tree rings in different parts of the world, lake varves, C14, ice layers from both poles, calcite layers in a cave, Thorium and Protactinium dating methods and ancient coral heads all add up to the same conclusion: the earth is old. There is no other rational conclusion.Correlations: The simultaneous change in value of two (or more) numerically valued random variables. The correlations between the methods and the ages derived by each method. The correlations between the methods and the climate derived from each method. The further correlation between age and climate.Not fancy shmancy fantasy from phoney pseudoscientists flying futily in fifty different directions at once. {{whisper}} ... correlations ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Its kind of interesting the times we live, and how much of an increase in earthquakes, in our times, like are they not warning signs, placing the earthquakes in the divers places, etc... kjv Matthew 24:7 earthquakes in divers places, sure sounds like along the coastlines. Is not this what were seeing, earthquakes along the trenches, the coastlines, like it is quite interesting that the Word is in line with earthquakes in divers places, how does this not infer along the coastlines which interestingly jive with earthquakes happening in the natural along the trenches, the islands, the mid-ocean ridges, the ring of fire, etc...

---

Umm, you do understand, don't you, that 'divers' means 'diverse' and not a place where people go diving like shorelines, mid-ocean ridges and trenches?

and none of which has to do with the topic.

Since this post is totally off topic here and is making absurd statements I don't think we need you posting here for a bit.(added by edit)whatever no longer has posting priviledges to Dates and Dating forum. I'm sorry to remove someone but there is no sign he will ever actually contribute anything of value. Unless something changes I will consider this suspension indefinite.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-08-2004 12:20 AM

As reviewed in the suggestions and questions forum.Please note that is where you take such issues next time.To repeat:So you get priviledges back for a bit whatever. However, consider each post carefully. It must be on topic. It must not have made up crap as an answer. It must deal with what is actually at issue. In other words it must not continue as you have been doing. Not in this thread at least.You may start out by explaining, in your own, words what the issue behind this thread is. If you fail to do that you will not keep your posting authorizations.

NosyNed, You should of realized if the glaciers happened suddenly then Razd's correlations have no merit, cause of the bear lake study, that no one addressed, so in essense I answered on topic, in respect to kettle lake varve formations, happening suddenly.

Raz, I guess I'll pass on your correlations, sounds like trying to correlate the word divers, which in this particular verse can mean coast (strongs greek), like some words have a multitude of meanings, your correlations is not all that straight forward, but I kind of agree with the tree rings that they can be no older than 10,000 years, etc...