Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

The darn thing is still a pdf though. I already had one of those.

but john, the scripture doesn't say a day IS a thousand years it says a day is LIKE a thousand years and a thousand years is LIKE a day, you have to pick it appart to make your claims, you are just making stuff up - your claim of a 13k earth and using scripture trying to prove this is just willful ignorance of your own text.it says that being with jesus is eternal,that time doesn't matter well the plant i was talking about was the kings holly and they found fossils that are exactly like it from the late Pleistocene period, plus i think they would use same dating methods they used to find the 12 thousand year-old shrub, plus i found other links to 13 thousand year old plants

It is even sillier than that and a great example of the metal gymnastics Biblical Contortionists go through. They take the "one day is like a Thousand Years" and then only selectively apply it to the six days of creation. It's fun to watch them dance and spin, but it is a tragedy how they butcher both the Bible and Christianity to satisfy their personal Hubris.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, but it's a PDF of text, the other was a PDF of pictures of text. You can cut-and-paste text from the one I did.Want a Word version?

Good point. I will make a copy of it and see how it came over.

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves.

Ok but when we say

quote:

---

The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves.

---

We mean the chronology is floating rather than the varves. Right?A bit like the.

quote:

---

floating German pine calibration curves.

---

mentioned in the same article.
Or is it that the german pines are found floating around on some lake?

Read verses 3,4 & 9 so your not ignorant of this one thing that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

I haven't managed to nail this down yet but you should note that the adjective "floating" is NOT refering to the varves.The noun is "chronology". It may be that a way to read this is it is a floating chronology based on varves. That is the chronology, by itself, it not "anchored" to a specific date. After the varves are counted to determine the length of the chronology then these are "anchored".I do NOT know this is the case yet. I'm trying to track down the meaning.ABE
I've emailed an author of a paper using the term.ABE 2
Silly me. It is right there in the paper (thanks to Jar for pointing it out).

quote:

---

In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2. Figure PE-4 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. The features in our data overlapping the tree-ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves. Using this match, we defined the absolute time scale for the Lake Suigetsu varves chronology. The 29,100 yr Lake Suigetsu chronology then covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37,930 cal BP.

---

The varves are NOT floating.Edited by NosyNed, : correct typoEdited by NosyNed, : added a bitEdited by NosyNed, : added even moreEdited by NosyNed, : reordered lines

I think JohnFolton is misinterpreting something from van der Plicht and Kitagawa's paper: they present a "29,000year-long floating chronology" from 10.43 down to 30.45 meters into their 75-meter-long core from the bed of Lake Suigetsu. I presume they didn't count each varve clear from the bed itself because of mechanical coring problems like losing chunks of core. As noted before by RAZD and others, though, this core chronology correlates beautifully with its own 14C dates - no discontinuities at the "Flood" - and with chronologies from all over the world done by a half-dozen different methods.

Ok, however does not mean the varves are solid clay samples. The coring sampler appears was piston corer and this corer is used in sampling cores from peat bog and small lakes (Lake Suigetsu).There was no mention of the water density test or bulk density test this (lack of mention of this test data) does not mean the varves would of been solid clay. The reason they used a piston corer probably was it was likely a quite mucky sample core. Colloids from biological processes can make things seem solid yet have low bulk densities. The link in respect to lake suitstu floating chronologies appears to be a poorly documented study(couldn't find anything on Lake Suigetsu cores wet bulk density analaysis).Do you have any evidence that cores taken are very solid, not mucky?Limnological Research Center | Department of Earth & Environmental SciencesCoring Systems
Coring technology is more than simply pushing a tube into mud. The LRC coring systems are designed to recover optimal cores with minimal sediment distortion. For water depths under 30 m, choices include a Wright-Livingston piston core and the MUCK corer, both multiple-entry push rod corer suitable for recovering varying-length cores from peatlands and shallow lakes.Water Content, Dry and Wet Bulk Density Analyses
Water content is determined by weight loss of a sample upon drying either in a drying oven (often as part of a loss on ignition analysis for carbon and carbonate), or in a freeze drier. Bulk density determinations can be made using volumetric sampling techniquesEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

John, all this nit picking stuff that you are mostly making up is being answered.Meanwhile you are NOT dealing with the larger facts of the matter.The dating of the varves correlates very well with C14 decay dates. How do you explain the match between counting and radioactive decay?
Are you trying to say it is all a total coincidence? That even though they are all wrong they still end up agreeing by some magic?How do you explain the match between this and other sites and other methods? Is this more coincidence of errors all cancelling out in some magic fashion?You are running around in very smaller circles with your head down ignoring the real facts.There are numerous methods to apply for dating. There are numerous differnt sites to apply them.To a very, very, very high degree they agree. This strongly suggests that even if any of the sources of error you try to find (or just make up)actually apply they still don't amount to enough to invalidate the methods.If you think an error source is a real prolbem then show how it can produce (other than by magic) the results that are actually obtained.

The core vdP and K recovered had a 20-meter-long continuous piece when they got it back to surface. They counted 30,000 or so varves in that piece. Does that sound like "muck" to you? Because they AREN'T, as you would know if you had read the paper and comprehended any of it. The light half of each varve couplet is made of diatom skeletons - nearly pure silica.

Suspect varves are still over 85 percent water, colloidals tend to hold things together. Thats still muck to me, unless you have evidence that substantially less than 85 percent is not water?

Whatever, johnfolton, you think this is ...... it is not the answer you need to provide. It is no answer at all. IF???You are still trying to advance your pawn, this forfeits the game when your king is in check. Please deal with the reality here:Science shows a correlation of age against climate and 14C dating with overlaps between three different systems -- each one correlating with climate, age and 14C -- and resulting in an age in excess of 45,000 years.One involves a tree, a Bristlecone Pine (not a "ponderosa", johnfolton, please use enough of the information provided to at least give the impression you are paying attention, eh? - otherwise one could get the impression that you are having trouble assimilating the information for some reason), that is high and dry on the top of the sierra nevadas, and thus has no way of having any of the 14C atoms being "leached" - by some mysterious under-defined underwater process - out of all the trees used (at exactly the same rate in each tree), while providing an unbroken chronology of tree rings that correlate with the decay rate for 14C to match those actual tree ring dates (and which you seem to accept as valid dates, yes?).The second involves a European Oak (again, still not a "ponderosa pine"), that are found often in bogs and digs underwater, thus being subject to being "leached" - by whatever mysterious under-defined underwater process you are still asserting indiscriminately and arbitrarily for the Lake Suigetsu varves - and yet they show no such effect on their correlations between their tree rings, climate and 14C age within the total population of trees used in that chronology, AND that still correlate exactly with the climate and 14C age for the Bristlecone Pine for the same tree ring age (thus invalidating any effect of "leaching" on those specimens), so you need to explain how your mysterious under-defined underwater process causes "leaching" in one underwater sample and not in another, (as well as explain the correlations of age and climate and 14C age for these two different chronologies).Even if you agree that the ages of both these tree ring chronologies are correct, correct for age, correct for climate and correct for 14C dating, you still need to explain the LACK of leaching for the European Oak specimens.The third involves the Lake Suigetsu varves ... which also match the two tree ring chronologies for climate and 14C correlations for the duration of the overlapped sections. Layers that just keep on going, deeper and deeper, yet with the same appearance of clay and diatoms layer after layer, with thicknesses that correlate with climate, and with the 14C age from decay.But the lake varves do not need to be tied to the tree ring chronologies -- we can still look at them as a totally independent system and evaluate their relative dating correlations: every time we count down 5715 clay\diatom layers we find an organic sample with 1/2 the 14C of the starting layer -- the ratio of 14C to 12C in each of the organic samples found correlate to the decay quantity that is left after the passage of the same number of years as the clay\diatom layers.One is linear, the other is exponential, and they match as they should for the decay and age differences.
You don't answer this with "well if the sky was red, ... and pluto was the sun, jupiter was aligned with mars, and trees flew ..."You answer this with a specific mechanism that actually works and that explains precisely how the 14C is always 1/2 at each 5715 layer increments. But don't you see that it ISN'T really a problem at all? There is absolutely no reason in the data to stop the correlation at any point.UNTIL you can show some method to make the data APPEAR to be annual rings, COMPLETE with calculations that show the ACTUAL (by your method) age to be what you claim, all your handwaving and "whatifs" don't amount to a hill of beans.I don't need to make any assumptions of age or anything, just look at what the evidence shows.The evidence shows a chronology that matches linear age of varve layers with decay age of 14C, thus I have two independent systems that agree on the ages of the layers.Why should I assume anything else? Especially something based in nothing more solid than wishful thinking? The organic samples tested from the lake have not been "bacterially digested" -- they are still identifiable as leaves and twigs and the like. This also does not explain the existence of the diatom layers. Why would they? More to the point HOW COULD THEY?Everytime we try this by shaking up and liquefying similar samples they do NOT form magical alternating layers like this, so until you have some mechanism to make it happen it would be absolutely foolish to assume that something happens that has never been observed in such a situation.You also are not reading the article -- the clay is there in the water constantly, as part of the sediment load from the runoff into the lake, it is there in the summer and there in the winter, and it is constantly settling down to the bottom of the lake. What is NOT constant is the bloom and death of the diatoms with the summer\winter seasons, and when they die they fall to the bottom of the lake. The reason there are distinct layers is because the diatoms start and stop and start and stop on an annual basis, but the clay is a constant settling action. The only reason there are layers of clay is because during the winter months there are no diatoms falling to the bottom and the predominant sediment is the clay, and it has enough time to make a layer.Thus you have two parts for your puzzle: diatoms separated into annual layers, but clay NOT sorted. Have fun.Annual layers explains it, it is observed, it is the same layer to layer to layer as far as the core samples extend. Carbon 14 age dating confirm it. Again, you have absolutely NO MECHANISM for this behavior, it has not been observed in any experiments, and there is absolutely no reason to assume something happens in the face of evidence that it doesn't. That is fantasy and not science.The methane transport model you proposed does not answer the questions of (1) how does the 14C get removed from the dead organic specimens in preference to 12C in the lower layers, and (2) how does it then get injected into upper layer dead organic specimens, when in both cases the atoms are bonded in molecules in both specimens. Any methane gas would just pass by all such specimens without affecting them.To say nothing of the fact there is no methane gas in the lake varve chronology.You also have a severe problem in your fantasy model of an extreme overabundance of 14C that you need to dispose of. At the level of annual lake varves for a 40,000 year old 14C age you have 1% of the 14C that you have in a current specimen: if these are really only 11,000 years old (lets say 11,430 just for yucks okay? == two half lives of 14C) they should have 25% of the 14C that you have in a current sampleIf you remove 24% of the 14C from the lower specimens (to "correct" their age) and transport it up and INTO the upper specimens and keep doing this for all the specimens that are in between that layer and the top, then you must have some specimens near the surface that will have WAY MORE than 100% of the 14C that they should have, and be dated into the future ... by multiples of thousands of years.There is no excess of 14C in the upper level varves, not in the samples and not in the sediments. No I am not factoring in anything that your imagination can dream up. I am observing the mechanisms that are shown by the evidence, measuring the ages of the layers by counting, measuring the layers by the decay of 14C, and then seeing IF they correlate. Gosh: they do. Not just with age but with climate too.This means it is NOT MY JOB to factor in all the fevered little things you can frantically imagine in your desperate attempts to support a fantasy -- my "job" was done when they correlated, as nothing else needed to be explained. They didn't have to correlate: they could have been all over the map on the chart; they could have been asymptotic at 11,000 years; but they weren't, they correlated in a straight line between the linear age of layers and the exponential age of organic specimens with 14C decay..It is YOUR job to show HOW your fantasy frantic imaginations can actually physically practically and completely explain the observed data down to the proper percentages of 14C for each and every layer in the core data.You haven't done that. That is what you need to do to protect your king. You are still trying to move that pawn forward, and it don't work that way. As such your whole post is garbage in and garbage out -- a total waste of bandwidth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.