Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements

See http://EvC Forum: Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements -->EvC Forum: Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements

And this decay is accelerated by what.....?Do we need to revisit a Dates and Dating thread?

The 350 factor? Is it enough? I don't know for sure, but anyone battling overheating in a 1 year period would love to have it stretched a factor 350. Only a handful of PhD young-earth creationists are working on post-Flood Mesozoic models so we just don't know yet.Slowing Baumgardner down? He wont have it (or at least his collegues). But in my experience (in theoretical phyics, PhD whether you want to believe that or not) it's quite easy to get a 2-3 order of magnitude variation in a theory like his. In my weak interactions work we often had 6 orders of magnitude variation in a prediction of this nature but that involved constraints on putative (now ruled out) 4th generation quarks.

Coragyps, I suspect it was discussed here somewhere:http://EvC Forum: New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay -->EvC Forum: New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decayAs you probably know the helium diffusion dating (at face value) implies accelerated decay and evolution of one or more fundamental constants including the Fermi constant could be involved. Kaluza-Klein theories (Einstein worked on these) can include evolving constants.

No, there's nothing in that thread showing that the Old Kingdom should be moved any more than the knock-on effects of the other arguments Rohl makes. There isn't even any reference to data supporting any additional redating prior to the Middle Kingdom. It doesn't help when you insist that the "Saul/David/Solomon evidence is impossible to deny" when it actually had serious problems.And any argument that carbon-dating is severely out prior to c9000BC has to deal with dendrochronology, too. Or does your assumed "accelerated radioactive decay" also cause trees to produce rings at the same accelerated rate ?

I'll try and track down the article I transcribed that revisioin correction summary from. I can still picture the diagram I extracted it from . . I'll also check the Rohl book.Dendrochronology 'wiggle matching' has been challenged even mainstream as you may be aware.

"Challenged" doesn't mean "disproved". It doesn't even mean that if there are errors they are in the direction you want. The point is, if there is such a big error in carbon dating why doesn't it show up in dendrochronology ? Never mind the other studies into calibrating C14 dating.So lets sum it up.You're relying on a dubious creationist paper to support "accelerated radioactive decay" while the wieght of the data shows no such effect.You're relying on Rohl's dodgy chronology to shift things about in Egypt.You're relying on Baumgardner's dodgy "CPT" hypothesis - or a variant of it to try to explain some geology.Compared to these dendrochronology is very solid and reliable.

Sure. They speed up tree-ring and varve formation by a factor of 350 at the same time that they're kaluzing the 14C.

I love dendrochronology but the wiggle alignment is not as fool proof as might be hoped according to material I read. If I find it I'll post it.

Varves? I don't know if they are technically varves at the recent Mt St Helen's mud flows but there are tens of thousands of micro-layers.

As I said, I'm not claiming that dendrochronology is perfect - but I am suggesting that it is good enough that we should reject your ideas.How far out does a 9000 BC date have to be in your view ? Clearly it must be wrong by at least 1500 years - in the right direction - and probably rather more than that. It is unlikely that there would be such a large error and even more unlikely that it would just happen to fit as well as it does with C14 dates.

I think this needs to continue there with folks who know more about dendrochronology than us although I'll see what I come across.

Your revised chronology for Egypt, as RickJB noted, doesn't help you. And you still have to explain how Egyptian civilization could establish itself on a river delta before the Mediterranean Sea had even formed.You have more ancient cultures to account for than just Egypt. A revised chronology there carries little significance for the events I mentioned in east Asia. And this part of the world presents huge geological problems for you.Never mind China or Japan and those long histories. Let's look at India.The Indian crustal plate separated from Madagascar in the late Mesozoic (Cretaceous Period) and moved quickly north to collide with the Eurasian continent. The Indus Valley, of course, is home to one of the world's great ancient civilizations.You insist on the compression of all this into a blindingly brief span of time. In a matter of generations, India has to fly north from a spot much further south, slam into Eurasia to spark a crust-cracking fury of mountain formation, yet function--despite that nuclear holocaust level of upheaval--as a place friendly to human settlement, agriculture, and trade.If India and Eurasia had collided at those speeds a mere 4,500 years ago, it's the last real estate on earth where one would look for ancient cultures today. Mount Everest would still be belching lava. The earthquakes would be rattling your desk in Australia.Have you considered changing your handle to Catastrophe Base?.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The AIG response is here: Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis involving cross matching and, interestingly, Rohl.

Even if it does, and even if Rohl is right, so what? The 550 year difference makes not one jot of difference in the wider scheme of things!