Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 211 of 1498 (679169)
11-12-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Amazing
Hi kofh2u
So this is the place where one MUST either say the Bible contradicts science and there science is wrong, or conversely, that the Bible says is wrong because science contradicts people who SAY what the Bible says, not what it DOES say
Not really. This is the place where you see how science explains all the correlations in a coherent and rational manner, and that if you think you have a alternate explanation, that you must then also be able to explain all the correlations, or admit that it doesn't explain the evidence that contradicts a young earth.
One of the alternatives is that the evidence lies, that it is illusion. This, of course, does not mean that any alternative explanation a person has is then a better explanation, just that any explanation then is equally (in)appropriate, and there is no rational way to pick one over the other. The big problem with this kind of explanation is that it means that whatever creator is behind the evidence being misleading is therefore a liar.
The fact that it is way long later, in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hoiur day is even created makes no difference in this ridiculous limitation to people whose reading comprehension is so poor and science people who want to pull their pants down here without my too cents?
Curiously, this does nothing to explain the correlations.
How convenient to lies on both sides.
Snide comments and ad hominem attacks also do not explain the correlations.
Perhaps the thread you are really looking to participate in is the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 3:51 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 12:10 AM RAZD has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


(1)
Message 212 of 1498 (679224)
11-13-2012 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
11-12-2012 6:56 PM


Re: Amazing
Not really. This is the place where you see how science explains all the correlations in a coherent and rational manner, and that if you think you have a alternate explanation, that you must then also be able to explain all the correlations, or admit that it doesn't explain the evidence that contradicts a young earth.
Well that surprises me.
I though the Evolution Vs Creationism site was actually about science demonstrating that the Bible is wrong particularly in Genesis1.
With that understanding, I post what the Bible actually says, which is NOT a young earth.
So you silence this input because it eliminates the conversation if I am correct,...
... and it negates your attack on the Bible.
You want to focus on the Straw Man of a very small bunch of Christian dummies who can not read Genesis comprehensively.
What I see is a set of rules which allow science people to pretend they have overcome the Christian faith in the bible by focusing on the few imbeciles.
How nice for the science side of this site,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2012 6:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Eli, posted 11-13-2012 12:14 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 214 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-13-2012 12:33 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2012 7:07 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 213 of 1498 (679226)
11-13-2012 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kofh2u
11-13-2012 12:10 AM


Re: Amazing
I only see one strawman.
The one you just made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 12:10 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 214 of 1498 (679233)
11-13-2012 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kofh2u
11-13-2012 12:10 AM


Does the Bible say the Earth is young?
With that understanding, I post what the Bible actually says, which is NOT a young earth.
Appearances are that the bulk of the creation side are young Earth.
I think many would love to see a one-on-one (or few-on-few) "Great Debate" on this issue, between the young Earth creationist side and the not a young Earth creationist side.
Feel free to propose such, or Private Message me about such, if you wish.
But such a (sub)topic does not belong in this topic.
Please, no response messages to this message, in this topic (such WILL trigger a 24 hour suspension). Go to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') topic if you feel you must publicly reply to this message.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 12:10 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 1:33 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 217 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 7:28 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 215 of 1498 (679241)
11-13-2012 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Adminnemooseus
11-13-2012 12:33 AM


Re: Does the Bible say the Earth is young?
Thread title:
"Does the Bible say the Earth is young?"
Answer:
No.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : And thus kofh2u gets a 24 hour suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-13-2012 12:33 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 1498 (679271)
11-13-2012 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kofh2u
11-13-2012 12:10 AM


Re: Amazing? Not really
Hi kofh2u
Well that surprises me.
I though the Evolution Vs Creationism site was actually about science demonstrating that the Bible is wrong particularly in Genesis1.
Curiously it is about debating sciences against beliefs, with each side demonstrating how their side explains reality and the evidence for reality.
This thread presents a number of correlations between different age measuring systems, especially ones that rely on direct counting of annual phenomena, and shows how they form a cohesive congruent system of age measurements.
The question then posed is that -- if you think the earth is not as old as these measurements show -- how do you explain the correlations.
With that understanding, I post what the Bible actually says, which is NOT a young earth.
If that is what you believe then there is no need for you to post on this thread -- you essentially agree with it.
So you silence this input because it eliminates the conversation if I am correct,...
... and it negates your attack on the Bible.
You want to focus on the Straw Man of a very small bunch of Christian dummies who can not read Genesis comprehensively.
What I see is a set of rules which allow science people to pretend they have overcome the Christian faith in the bible by focusing on the few imbeciles.
It is not an attack on the bible, rather it is an attack on an interpretation of the bible that tells people that the earth is young. If you do not ascribe to such an interpretation then this does not attack the bible as you interpret it.
How nice for the science side of this site,...
How nice that the evidence of reality supports a consistent pattern of age dating methodologies that produce consistence, corroborative and consilient results. That alone appears to support the scientific process.
Message 215:
Thread title:
"Does the Bible say the Earth is young?"
Answer:
No.
I agree -- the evidence shows that it is old -- and thus there is no need for you to participate further on this thread, as the purpose of the thread is to have people who disagree with the age of the earth to present information on how they explain the correlations that occur.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 12:10 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 7:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 217 of 1498 (682309)
12-01-2012 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Adminnemooseus
11-13-2012 12:33 AM


Re: Does the Bible say the Earth is young?
Appearances are that the bulk of the creation side are young Earth.
I think many would love to see a one-on-one (or few-on-few) "Great Debate" on this issue, between the young Earth creationist side and the not a young Earth creationist side.
Feel free to propose such,
1) Thank you fpr moving my post to a place acceptable to you.
I hope people here wil go there andl ask qeustions about measuring the History of the Earth by using geology as the ruler or clock.
2) In regard to your question here, "Does the Bible say the Earth is young?" I agree with you science minded people.
So does the pope, by the way.
In 1998, the pope said that the ToE was to compelling to mainyain arguments against it. Hence the Catholic christians are also against the few remaining YEC Protestants.
3) This thread apparently is intended to use science to oppose the remaining christians who are called YECs.
I add my sentiments to the science arguments which supports this criticism, and I also criticize the YEC reading comprehension.
I am in full support of all the science presented here that ridicules the YEC nonsense.
4) I add the observation that, using correct reading comprehension also criticizes the way YECs understand Genesis.
My contribution to this thread adds the argument that YECs can't read comprehensively.
Genesis agrees with science by telling the YECs in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hour Earth Day is a different "day" or duration than the seven that are referred to from Gen 1:1 on.
The history of the universe is measured by seven major events.
Those events have long durations called "days" by the bible writers, but that word does not mean 24 hour earth days.
The Hebrew word yowm can mean a 24 hour day, but can also mean any duration even an Age.
Gen 1:14 clearly explains to the YECs that Earth Time appears with first life on the third cosmic duration, i.e. the Mesoarchean evening of the Archean Eon and the Proterozoic morning:
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-13-2012 12:33 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 218 of 1498 (682310)
12-01-2012 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
11-13-2012 7:07 AM


Re: Amazing? Not really
It is not an attack on the bible, rather it is an attack on an interpretation of the bible that tells people that the earth is young. If you do not ascribe to such an interpretation then this does not attack the bible as you interpret it.
...there is no need for you to participate further on this thread, as the purpose of the thread is to have people who disagree with the age of the earth to present information on how they explain the correlations that occur.
That was very informative.
Thank you.
You see this thread as science people Vs YECs on the issue of seven "days."
That was not clear to me in the Opening Post.
I now am advised that the Opening Post ought be understood as "YECs only in defense of Young Earth misinterpretation of Genesis."
I bow to your exclusivity and will refrain from interacting with you from here on out.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2012 7:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 219 of 1498 (687892)
01-17-2013 2:39 PM


bump for YEC's
Start at Message 1
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 1498 (688002)
01-18-2013 12:57 PM


mindspawn
From Message 489 of thread Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo where mindspawn says:
quote:
Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.
I have deliberately avoided this topic in this thread because of all the side issues it creates, and there have already been too many side issues. But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc.
What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison.
PS I am not a YEC, I believe Genesis 1 starts with an earth already in existence, and then we have 6 days of events from the visible perspective from the misty surface of the earth. So I do believe in 6 literal days of creation, but this involves increased visibility in a misty world, and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.
So to answer mindspawns post:
... But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc.
Curiously this misinformation hand waving dismissal has no effect on the actual science involved. The issue is correlations and why they occur to such a fine degree of accuracy if such errors are rampant.
What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison.
The issue is correlations between dating methods and why they agree so consistently (within 0.5% over 8,000 years with just tree rings .... )
PS I am not a YEC, I believe ... and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.
Which to me qualifies as a YEC concept that is invalidated by the information provided on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (three different tree ring chronologies extend to over 12,000 years of life (see Message 3 and Message 4), varves in Lake Suigetsu extend to over 35,000 years of organic life embedded in the varves(see Message 5 and Message 21)). Note that the varves are alternate layers of diatom tests (shells) and slow settling clay (representing summer and winter life cycles).
Again the issue is correlations, not just the methodology -- why do all these methods correlate for age, climate and other factors (ratios of 14C/12C ratios same for same layer ages, for instance).
This is the correlation between the annual tree rings, climate, sun cycles and the ratios of 14C/12C (see Message 4):
404 Page not found (9)
quote:

Note the little jigs and jags along this curve all match up between the different dendrochronologies -- they are from climate changes and from sun cycles (which can be observed today with the same periodic cycles) -- and how little "scatter" there is in the plot.
The overall difference between the data and the theoretical line (at 45°) is due to climate changes, and this curve is used to correct 14C dating to more probable ages ... with the correction making objects tested older than plain vanilla results.
Just this information should make you seriously doubt your 7,000 year age for organic life if not trash it altogether (the scientific approach to invalidated concepts).
This is the correlation between annual varve layers in Lake Suigetsu, the rate of deposit of the layers, ash deposits from volcanoes, and 14C/12C ratios (see Message 21):
The labeled ash deposits have been dated from other locations and correlate with the data here.
Note the correlation between C-14 and depth and with C-14 and the varve layer count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. Why?
When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:
Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"
There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does -- age.
At this point a rational person that cannot explain these correlations should discard all notions of life limited to the last 7,000 years, but hey: have a whack at trying to explain the correlations and we'll see what happens.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 221 of 1498 (688060)
01-18-2013 6:44 PM


Another response to mindspawn
In the other thread mindspawn writes:
Its not that all of science is wrong, its just that a few categories of science are based on
1) radiometric dating (does have scientific backing, but too many assumptions and also a head in the sand approach) ...
So you feel that radiometric dating is wrong because it has "too many assumptions?"
Why do you, and other creationists, feel that those assumptions are automatically wrong?
Do you have any evidence that they are wrong, other than they come up with answers you don't like for entirely unrelated reasons?
And as RAZD points out, all of the various dating methods are pointing in the same direction even though they rely on far different datasets and far different assumptions. How can you explain this?
I think you are just blowing smoke here, and that you really have no evidence that the assumptions are wrong, but are just using that to be able to discount 1) radiometric dating methods, and 2) the sciences that are based on them.
But if you would like to debate the issue, this is the place. One of my areas is radiocarbon dating if you would like to concentrate on that.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by JonF, posted 01-19-2013 9:10 AM Coyote has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 222 of 1498 (688119)
01-19-2013 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Coyote
01-18-2013 6:44 PM


Re: Another response to mindspawn
So you feel that radiometric dating is wrong because it has "too many assumptions?"
And if the creationist actually specifies the assumptions, it's always the same three, two of which are not assumptions involved in most geological radiometric dating and one which is a conclusion based on mountains of data.
  • Assumed initial daughter product
  • Assumed closed system
  • Assumed constant decay rate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 01-18-2013 6:44 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2013 12:38 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 223 of 1498 (688138)
01-19-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by JonF
01-19-2013 9:10 AM


Re: Another response to mindspawn
... it's always the same three, two of which are not assumptions involved in most geological radiometric dating and one which is a conclusion based on mountains of data.
  • Assumed initial daughter product
  • Assumed closed system
  • Assumed constant decay rate
The issue of "Assumed constant decay rate" can be discussed on the Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? thread as well as on this thread with the evidence for the correlation of constant decay rate dating methods with the annual counting methods, noting as I have in Message 9
quote:
They measured the age with a radiometric decay system and also measured d18O and d13C as measures of climate. There is a table with the 284 samples by age with d18O and d13C values. For a correlation of that data to the age and climate information we have already see we turn to
USGS URL Resolution Error Page (8)
Note - "highly correlated" with climatological data from the Vostok ice core data, which "matches almost perfectly" the climatological data from the Greenland ice core data. Corroborated by two independent radiometric methods. The oldest date in the data table is 567,700 years ago.
Two radiometric methods were used on the calcite, agreeing with each other, they also correlated the levels of d18O and d13C with the levels in the ice cores annual dating system. The variations in d18O and d13C represent climate variations.
There are other ways that radiometric dating correlates with other methods, thus showing the scientific, robust, value of radiometric dating.
A good reference to radiometric dating is
Radiometric Dating
quote:
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by JonF, posted 01-19-2013 9:10 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2013 5:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 224 of 1498 (688294)
01-21-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by RAZD
01-19-2013 12:38 PM


Re: Another bump for mindspawn
In Message 497 of Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo midspawn says:
quote:
Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. I find the scientific community is unfortunately biased through accepting the theory of evolution too early when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)
Due to this bias I cannot be restricted to publications of the scientific community only.
Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. ...
What I ask for is an explanation for the correlations:
Message 1: The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.
That is the only requirement that I have set out.
For instance, if you claim that double rings are common in dendrochronology then you have to explain the correlations with the sun cycles and 14C/12C ratios which would not be changed by whatever causes double rings.
... when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)
Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this.
Due to this bias I cannot be restricted to publications of the scientific community only.
Seems like an excuse to me to avoid having to deal with the information here. This is predictable: most creationists seem to avoid this thread because the information is too dangerous to their beliefs.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2013 12:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 5:43 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 226 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 6:04 AM RAZD has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 225 of 1498 (688360)
01-22-2013 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-21-2013 5:52 PM


Re: Another bump for mindspawn
Seems like an excuse to me to avoid having to deal with the information here. This is predictable: most creationists seem to avoid this thread because the information is too dangerous to their beliefs.
I can understand your frustration with the lack of discussion in your dating thread, and I am ready to participate now. If you can just be patient with me, I will deal with some of the issues one by one, and then get to your core issue of the observed correlation between the various dating methods you have presented.
Starting with varves, its the study of modern varve creation that reveals to us how they were created historically, and these layers that look like "annual" often are not annual layers (they look like varves but are not).
Basin Morphology, Sedimentology, and History of a Small Proglacial Lake, Matanuska Glacier, Alaska
Sean Bryan, Senior Integrative Exercise, March 10, 2004:
There are several limnological criteria, such as the existence of
suspended matter in the water column and water stratification for part of the year, that must be present in order for rhythmic laminations to be true varves (Sturm, 1979). Rhythmic light and dark laminations are not necessarily varves (Lambert and Hsu, 1979;Syverson, 1998) and there may be more than one light-dark couplet in an annual deposit (Shaw et al., 1978; Pickrill and Irwin, 1983; Desloges, 1994).
Due to there being many many places in which varve-like patterns are formed, just according to the sheer number, its easy to find one "varve pattern" that has a vaguely correlating pattern to other dating methods. If they were rarer, then the "correlation" would have more significance. Its pretty obvious that any beach washes up shells according to moon cycle, spring tide every 28 days is where the most shells are left stranded to be covered by soft windblown beach sand for the next 27 days. If you choose spring tide "varves" (true varves are annual, not monthly) you will be out by a factor of 12, and you will achieve an automatic close match with carbon dating, which can also be out by a factor of 12.
Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, and the dates are established according to current carbon atmospheric content. It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. Most civilizations report an impact event around 3500bp (Kohl's revised dating) which would have also destroyed vegetation thus kept the carbon ratio high. Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures rather than the fluctuating pressures of the past.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2013 5:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2013 6:17 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2013 6:30 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024