Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Okay, that's much clearer (and correct).

G, if you think that mainstream scientists are no more competent than YEC scientists, and they couldn't recognize material that had been altered in some way, then we simply don't have much left to say here.You have never addressed my point that there is concordance between the radiocarbon dates and the varve dates. How do you explain this? Is it a coincidence or a miracle? No, Golfer. We do not need it. YOU need it, because you want desperately to find some fault with the paper. If you had these items, then you would just want more. In this case, I believe that the basic elements of the lake geography were explained. They are not, because the problem is irrelevant. If there were some kind of humic reactions occurring, the researchers would have recognized it without any kind of a 'mineral profile'. Well, then, you need to show this. The burden of such a charge is on the one making the charge. But never mind, I'm sure I know what your answer is.

Golfer has really not dealt with the issue here, that both the layer counting and the 14C dates match.All he has done is posit fantastic (whatever) reasons why one or the other could be wrong, but not why both are wrong in the same way at the same time, AND in ways that match other dating methods and data.From http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe last sentence is a little weird because it is attempting to provide a key to the different symbols on the graph and is getting bolixed by the html renditions, but note particularly that the "o" data points are NOT from Lake Suigetsu, but from marine corals by another mechanism for dating and comparing to 14C -- and it matches the line from Lake Suigetsu at 20,000 years and at 21,000 years and at 30,000 years.Specifically these dates come from{abe}And these are not the only correlations involved. From the same source:That makes it correlations to another layer counting method tied to Lake Suigetsu by the climate data from both 14C and 10Be.{/abe}These correlations are what kill all of Golfers "what-if" arguments completely, and as long as he fails to deal with the correlations in any way, his arguments are pure {fiction\fantasy} at best.No alternate explanation of {MULTIPLE} correlations means no possible criticism of any one set of data, because the data is boxed with the other data in these multiple correlations.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*31*2005 10:47 AM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

roxrkool, If you look at the tight correlations that agree with tree rings this does suggests annual varve were forming since say the creationists biblical flood. Given the tight correlations line gets bothchy after around 8,000 years appears due to anaerobic digestion gases profiling upward, humic acid organic mineral contamination suggesting that lower varves are not annual depositions.Topography & soil related profiles might shed light related to how & when Suietsu's kettle formed. Questions has the lake bed water level receeded. Does related topography elevations indicate that the Oceans tidal waters played a factor in lower varve deposition(is there a path to the Ocean).How big is Suietsu's watershed. The topography depth profiles of the lake itself. How does its soil & topography profiles compare to other lakes formed in immediate area, do they have the same lake bed profiling.If Suietsu is difference is that its a kettle lake and given the straight line assumed annual correlations get bothcy after around 8,000 years. There were glaciers melting around this time frame and Lake Suietsu is quite close to the ocean. (was it formed by a big iceberg floating in from a melting glacier 5,000 years ago). http://www.msu.edu/user/lebaron1/i.htm

Golfer. I think you may have got hold of the wrong idea about decay. Neutrons and protons do not decay into helium.
Large unstable atomic nuclei decay by emiting a chunk of material which is comprized of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This is an alpha particle or a Helium nucleus if you prefer. neutrons and protons don't decay to make it. It is already made when it leaves the larger nucleus.
There is no cold fussion here.And what is this about 2.65 years half lives?
Is this just because the link mentioned Californium 252?That just happems to be one of the longer lived, artificially created isotopes that are comercially available. Most radioactive isotopes have much longer half lives. that just means that they decay far more infrequently and are a lot less use as a portable source of neutrons. Who wants to wait a few billion years for a given atom to decay when you can get Ca252 which will do it in two and a half years? Yes, large mass atoms do decay in steps of 4 mass units at a time by Alpha decay. No protons and neutrons don't combine after emission. They do it during the emission process. Neutrons and protons in the nucleus simply rearrange to more stable formations and this results in two distinct and seperate nuclei which then fly apart. There is no fussion of any sort going on here. Umm? It is decaying neutrons without protons. Fission has nothing to do with alpha decay. It doesn't involve protons at all.
Here is a neat little diagram to demonstrate how fission works.
it shows the fission of an atom of U235. Note that the products include Rb90, Cs143 and 3 free high energy neutrons.Fission is usually initiated by the parent atom absorbing a thermal neutron, thus increasing its instability, but as I showed you earlier, spontaineous fission does happen. I have plenty more links if you want them.I am not going to bother responding to the rest of the post since
1) It has little or nothing to do with my point of N14 neutron capture to make C14 in underground water sources.
2) It appears to devolve into meaningless and disconnected rambling.

Actually, much before the alledge biblical flood. There is very good correlation out to at least 40ky. Why is that? Just a coincidence? Perhaps a miracle? Sorry, but I'd estimate the correlation here in excess of 0.9. Most statisticians would say this is not a chance event. How many correlatios have you done in your career? This particular one is phenomenal. Why come up with some ad hoc explanation for variation when we know there are many other factors involved such as laboratory contamination, analytical uncertainty, etc., which all increase with the age? Your scenario makes this data impossible. Right. It takes Golfer, who is not even a scientist, and does not even understand radiometric dating, to point this out to people who have done this work for entire careers. I'm just glad we have you around to point out how incompetent the mainstream scientists are. You REALLY DO think that no one has ever thought of this before, don't you? This is why we have a thing called peer review, G. Something that YECs completely fail to understand. Gee, that's a mystery! The authors were probably too stupid to address this. Even though it is really irrelevant.And would you please spell 'Suigetsu' correctly? To me this is clear indication that you do not even give our responses the courtesy of a close read. Gee, another stumper! I don't suppose that any mainstream folks would be smart enough to evaluate whether this is possible. Yep, a job is waiting for you in the geochronology business. Nobody I know would ever consider these points.But then, of course, I'm sure that with answers to these questions you would need even more data. Am I right? I get it! You expect perfect correlation! Sorry, only in the absolutist YEC world... And?People have looked at these things, you should know. I won't present a reference because all it will mean to you is that someone is critically reviewing the procedure - a sure indication that it won't work in the wonderful world of YEC.By the way, we are still waiting for your explanation why there should be ANY correlation at all between varve and 14C dates.

Here's that "botchy" correlation:From http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe last sentence is a little weird because it is attempting to provide a key to the different symbols on the graph and is getting bolixed by the html renditions, but note particularly that the "o" data points are NOT from Lake Suigetsu, but from marine corals by another mechanism for dating and comparing to 14C -- and it matches the line from Lake Suigetsu at 20,000 years and at 21,000 years and at 30,000 years.{abe}Note you could draw a straight line through the first 8000 years and extend that out to about 26,000 years before there was any divergence of the data from a straight line correlation. This means that the first 26,000 years correlation is as good as the first 8,000 years. The change after that comes from climate changes that affected the ratio of 14C in the atmosphere.{/abe}Enjoy.Edited graphic to show straight line, in RED. Also edited it to highlight some of the coral data correlations, in MAGENTA, data points that are also correlated with annual layers from both arctic and antarctic ice cores. See previous post Message 288.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*31*2005 05:42 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

PurpleYouko, It sound like a form of cold fusion happening inside the nucleous of the element decaying. Perhaps transmutating for lack of a better word, since spontaneous fission is not whats happening in respect to the alpha particle.Interesting article about a new battery on the horizon (the atomic battery) about converting radioactive decay energy to power your labtops (the atomic battery).Meanwhile, a team from Cornell University last month unveiled a device that converts the energy stored in radioactive material directly into mechanical motion, which in turn moves the parts of a miniscule machine to generate electricity. This type of battery could supply power for decades, said Amit Lal, a professor at Cornell's electrical and computer engineering department and the lead researcher.Lal said that medical device makers and cell phone makers have shown interest in commercial applications of the atomic battery, adding that consumers may see the new batteries in cell phones in about three to four years.http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2125895,00.htmcold fusionn : nuclear fusion at or near room temperatures; claims to have discovered it are generally considered to have been mistakenCold fusion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-31-2005 07:55 PM

It doesn't sound even remotely like fusion. Fusion, hot, cold, or lukewarm, means putting smaller nuclei together to make bigger ones. Alpha decay might be thought of as a special case of fission where a big nucleus breaks up into a nucleus that weighs 4 amu less and a helium.
And this has nothing to do with talc turning into kerogen and diatoms in Japanese lakebottoms.

Coragyps, Liquefaction sorting explains the lower floating varves are not annual varves. The absense of oxygen (anaerobic digestion)decays organics forming humic acids. Humic acids bond to organics and almost all the minerals on the periodic table including lead.The clays forming in the floating varves liquefaction state would sort by particle size and pressure (enhanced by the CO2 and Methane gases reducing bouyancy(particle density), explaining diatom layers, clay layers, (multiple sorting upwards).The greater age with increasing depth is explained by the C14 diffusing upward by CO2 & Methane anaerobic gasing.--------------------------------------------14C is present in gaseous form (CO2) and gradually diffuses in the earth systemhttp://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmTo All: Happy New YearsThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-31-2005 09:46 PM

Golfer;Bullcrap.

Golf,You're really jumping through hoops here trying to explain why the carbon dates are wrong, and why all the other dates which agree with the carbon dates are wrong.Let's assume you are right on all your points (your not, but let's have fun).The stuff you are suggesting happened here at this one lakebed can not be the same things happening in other places.For example, when we find a mammoth in the Ice, we can carbon date it. Those dates agree with other global dates.Even if you are right about this one lake, you haven't come close to explaining this globally.Just because there isn't beer in the cabinet doesn't mean there's no beer in town.

Please explain 'liquefaction sorting' and 'floating varves'. Golfer, we know that sometimes there can be two varves in a years. However, this happens very rarely especially in temperate lakes. Irrelevant. If there is a suggestions of alteration, the material is not dated or taken with great skepticism. I have told you this at least 5 times now. Why do you not resond? I am really quite hurt by your snub. Do you have an example? This sounds like hocus pocus to me. Why would this happen thousands of times in succession. You need to explain this better than making an assertion. Please tell us why the degassing would be so uniformly upward. Are you some kind of uber-uniformitarianist?

Nuggin, Why not? "if" the Creationists flood occurred 5,450 years ago (if one creation day = 1000 years) then African Eve would be around 6,000 years old. More importantly all the sediments of the earth would of been liquefied with anaerobic digestion (lack of oxygen) bacteria forming humic acids thus explaining the intense mineralization of some of the sediments that lithified (compressed).In fact evolutionists apparently now dating the lead isotopes present in these mineralized glues within these sediments to age the lithification event in time.Humic acids affinity to mineralize lead might yet explain how come all the other isotope dates appear proportional with depth. With the greater isotope date scale a little contamination affects a date millions of years. There you have it, etc... Not that you'll believe it. You will have a hard time convincing a Creationists because they have leachate contamination on a global scale.P.S. I'd suspect dates would agree but don't agree it means the earth is an old one. If the earth's elements undergone fussion in the vacuums of space then all this isotope decay could of been happening before the earth was created. We might have an appearance of age but this does not necessarily mean the earth is an old one.

That's all folk.

---