Summations Only

I saw no comment on my last post showing the support for long age, so see how this goes.The comparison of C14 age with tree ring age shows a very close relation till about 2000 years ago, then C14 starts to understate the age by up to a few percent. This trend is continued when the comparison is moved to Lake Suigetsu varves. At around 40,000 years ago the C14 date seems to approach the varve age more closely.
The more recent investigation of Suigetsu involves some 800 samples sent blinded to two or sometimes three different labs for testing. Seems to be a lot of trouble when you already "know" the result you want.What I find particularly interesting is the detail of the curve plotting C14 age against ring and varve count. First there is that deviation from exact parallel I mentioned. Also there are reported to be plateaus in the curve where the C14 age does not vary much, especially about 11000 years ago but also other shorter ones. This would be due to variation in the rate of C14 production or the release of old C into the atmosphere.So, Faith, what is going on here? Are the researchers reporting real findings and C14 can be reliable to 40,000 years plus? Are they just making it all up and reporting these variations from a straight line concurrence to make it look good? Did the Flood lay down tens of thousands of layers in Lake Suigetsu while C14 decay was altering?
These are the sort of questions that terminated RAZD's debate with mindspawn.

Woodmorappe in an article on age issues mentioned that there can be variation in the production of C14 to confuse results, referencing a Science article that clearly showed how tree rings and varves allow the correction, a matter which he of course ignored.

Creation "science" at work."Woodmorappe" (the pen name of Jan Peczkis, a grade school teacher) is not exactly the most authoritative commentator on matters of science.

I've pretty much proved the Flood on this thread already, why are you nagging me about irrelevant side issues? Acknowledge the reasonableness of the Flood as the best explanation for the actual evidence presented. I don't owe you an answer to anything until you do.

You are completely deluded.

Reported results that completely refute the Flood are hardly irrelevant side-issues. How did the Flood lay down 40,000 plus neat couplets of diatoms and clay, with C14 date increasing with depth? And you still have to fit in the vulcanism and tens of thousands of ice layers.
So much to do, so little time.

Woodmorappe did acknowledge that the tree-ring count out into the 8,000s was solid. He was trying to find a way to collapse into 4000 years. He needs luck!

Grand Canyon 'formed recently' - BBC News

I mis-read. Sorry. WTF is "unconsciously emphasizing the positive" There was nothing positive in your message. nAnd you still cannot admit your error. I acknowledged mine.There's lots of discussion about false readings of radiometric dating. Your claim was wrong. Maybe Coyote writes of false readings, maybe he doesn't. Irrelevant. Maybe Coyote inspired your comment. Irrelevant. Your claim was "False readings are never reported, it's always made to seem absolutely perfect even though you know it isn't". That doesn't refer to an individual, it refers to a group, and is libeling that group. You owe that group an apology because your UABF was wrong as usualAnd your other UABF, "And when I said it's withheld from creationists I meant in discussions like these. ", has been proven conclusively wrong. Will you admit your error or will you continue to insist you are globally infallible?

Oh for your god's sake, try and learn something and use the brain that nature imbued you with. With the possible exception of pure mathematics NOTHING can ever be proved - I challenge you to try with anything you wish outside of pure mathematics.Every advance we have made as a species using our science has been with the understanding of 'best fit' theories against the real hard evidence. That has led us to increase longevity from 24 to 83 years (male UK figures) over the past 1000 years, land on the moon (you're not a we-didn’t-land- on-the-moon conspiracist are you?) send probes to asteroids, planetary satellites and even spacecraft out of the solar system all together. It's allowed us to wipe out diseases such as small pox and to lessen other killer diseases. It's allowed us to feed 7 billion and to colonise every niche on the planet and to have mastery over all other species.Science and the human mind have done all this from the Scientific method that you decry so willingly. The ‘science creed’ you love to decry has shaped every bit of your comfortable life. Religion has done nothing for us as a species - indeed a greater foment of wars would be hard to find. In ancient Greece and Rome we had architecture, roads, spas, philosophy and fledgling science. After Christianity came along Middle-ages Britain (for example) in the 1300's had plague, faeces tossed out of windows, heresy, witches being burnt, scientists persecuted and put to death.....who knows how many great minds were lost in those barbaric superstitious times!!Back to the topic....here's a challenge for you: You say we can't be sure of the long distant past ....so here's a statement for you:We know with absolute certainty that the early Earth atmosphere could not possibly have contained more than a trace of oxygen (so no humans or any other oxygen breathing animals could possibly have survived then). How do we know this since we weren’t there? How are we so certain we are right?Hint: Very basic chemistry.....if you can't figure it out you need to go back to school.

Cute quote-mine, Faith. The "was" in your second quote gives it away. The author is describing some ways in which geology is misunderstood, and goes on to correct those misunderstandings.

quote:

---

I believe that the received view of geology as outlined above is mistaken. My interest as a philosopher is in challenging the assumption that geology is merely applied and imprecise physics, vainly attempting to achieve the latter’s degree of resolution and predictability. Rather, I believe that the challenges and difficulties inherent to geological reasoning have prompted geologists to develop a variety of reasoning techniques that are quite similar to some of those described and used within Continental Philosophy. My claim, then, is that geological reasoning consists of a combination of logical procedures. Some of these it shares with the experimental sciences, while others are more typical of the humanities in general and Continental Philosophy in particular. This combination of techniques is not utterly unique to geology; in fact, I would argue that such a combination is to one degree or another present in most types of thinking, scientific or otherwise. But I claim that this combination is especially characteristic of geological reasoning. If this view is correct, then the ‘‘physics envy’’ that geology sometimes seems to suffer from (i.e., the sense of inferiority concerning the status of geology as compared with other, ‘‘harder’’ sciences) is misplaced.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,The style of approach taken by that article (Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science) is the one that goes, "I have such good answers for these objections that I shall raise them myself." You're quoting from the part that characterizes the objections, not from the article's answers or conclusions.Also, you seem to have misinterpreted the first quote. The author doesn't use the word "derivative" in the sense of "not genuine". The article is about geological reasoning, and as he explains, he uses the term "derivative" in the sense that the reasoning used in geology derives from physics. He goes on to argue that in addition to those of physics geology has its own set of reasoning operations.The article doesn't at all support your claim that "you can't verify anything from the prehistoric past." There's a whole section on geology as a historical science beginning on page 964.--Percy

You are totally delusional.All you've convinced anyone of is your ignorance, inability to reason, lack of visualization skills, lack of math skills, lack of interest in evidence disproving your ideas, lack of introspection, emphasis on Biblical interpretations at the expense of reality, and reliance on primitive rhetorical techniques (name calling, declarations of victory, ignoring arguments, etc.) in place of arguments from evidence.--Percy

Run away! Run away!The state of the layers at step 7 is key. You wrote of step 7: Remember, meanders are formed by slow flow, and they are approximately the same width as the river. If the walls were not well along in lithification, the walls would collapse. If the walls were lithified or well along in the process, you don't have anywhere near enough time for the GC to form.

You have to think in terms of equilibrium energy states. The river before the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations and the river after the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations once the flow has once again reached an equilibrium in the energy distribution. If I introduce any size obstruction at section 2 in the upper graph then the value of H_f1-2 is increased and the surface level will be higher. The actual amount may be unnoticeable but it is still there.At some point upstream of the obstruction and at some point below the obstruction the energy flow states will be unchanged (as long as the obstruction doesn't entirely block the flow). The only question is how far apart this is and how much the levels in between are affected. It doesn't appear backed up because it has reached equilibrium and this backup causes increased flow to the right of the log and to the right of the island while still remaining in the laminar flow (another issue not discussed yet) in these sections (versus turbulent flow at the log). Laminar flow and turbulent flow have different friction gradients with depth. It's called fluid dynamics, equations way beyond Faiths capacity or willingness. Note the discussion of viscous flow and that the viscosity of the liquid affects the behavior. Thus mud flow differs from pure water, but both can be mathematically modeled.Edited by RAZD, : ..