Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

This can't be stressed enough. The results from Lake Suigetsu correlate with results from a lake in Poland. So we have two lakes on opposite sides of the world that have the same sorting of organic debris by 14C concentrations. Even within the same method there is considerable correlation.The correlations become even more impressive when you compare different methods. The two sets of lake varve data also agree with tree dendrochronology from both Europe and North America, coral dating by annual growth patterns, and carbon dioxide captured in annual ice layers in both Greenland and Antarctica. I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating.Creationists need to explain how all of these quite different methods all agree with one another.

Not only that, you can also find markers from known volcanic eruptions in the correct ice layers (to which the other methods correlate to). I even remember reading a paper where they used modern tree dendrochronology to show the spread of 14C spikes caused by atmospheric hydrogen bomb testing. They were actually able to show how the 14C spike spread from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere over a years time. That is another great point. All of these data sets would be easily interrupted by Noah's Flood. In fact, the ice sheets themselves would have lifted off of the continents (unless creationists want to claim that ice did not float in Noah's time?). You should also see an interruption in tree growth and diatom sedimentation. Heck, you would expect contamination from marine plankton in the Lake Suigetsu record, but it isn't there. Instead, it is all fresh water diatom growth and organic debris sorted by tiny differences in 14C.C'mon creationists, explain these correlations.

You have always done a great job of showing correlation between non-radiometric methods and radiometric methods. However, the correlation between completely independent radiometric methods is also quite compelling. Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite essays on the subject:

quote:

---

​

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.

​

"Radiometric Dating Does Work!" by G Brent Dalrymple
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

---

The map is not the territory. Those who can't understand this simple concept are open to mockery.

That wouldn't even work in 2nd grade.

As RAZD has stated many times, it is the consilience between data sets that demonstrates their accuracy. What you need to explain is how the Bristlecone Pine data in North American correlates with the Oak data from Europe. If local changes cause multiple rings or lack of rings, then how is it that a different species half way across the globe produces the same data?On top of that, you also need to explain how the tree ring data also correlates with lake varves, corals, ice layers, and speleothems.

That is entirely made up.

The ratios of decay products in the Oklo reactor exactly matches modern decay rates and products. The past matches the present, and we have the physical evidence.

Why should we even care about your rantings? It's not like you will be convinced by logic, reason, or evidence, so why should your opinions carry any weight?

You claim that any strata is a product of the Flood no matter what it looks like. You are incapable of describing what features a geologic formation would need to have in order for it to be evidence against a flood.

Your claims are undermined by the fact that you will label any geologic formation as a product of the flood, no matter what it looks like. You don't have evidence. You have a dogmatic belief impervious to evidence.