Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

lets see if you can handle the correlations issue of the different dating methods -- see {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

lets see if you can handle the correlations issue of the different dating methods -- see {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

whatever was YEC, iirc

What about the rest of the correlations eh? Wave them away while accepting some is just being arbitrary and choosing ignorance. But this has no bearing on the consistent pattern of the varves, which surely such a global catastrophy would have done. Again the pattern matches that for climate for the lesser dryas period for both layer age and 14C age ... and with the other layer methods.Perhaps if you settled on an age for your flood scenario we could discuss this in greater detail: before vs after effects eh? Then deal with the age on the correlations thread and let's see how you can substantiate your position.I'll take failure to do so as a tacit admission that you don't really want to deal with any inconvenient facts, and just want to keep to your comfort zone on what you can deny to yourself.I started Part III just for you after all:{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

14C dating of inorganics is totally irrelevant and meaningless because the inorganics are not dependant on atmospheric carbon in their formation and there is no selective mechanism involved to base the dates on.bluntly speaking anyone who says that this is evidence that 14C dating of organics is invalid is misrepresenting the science and the method and the facts and the data and the results: they are lying to you.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you are still not dealing with the correlations between the various dating methods that end up with the same dates for the same annual layers even though the layers are from entirely different mechanisms, nor are you dealing with the correlations with climate information that is also available from the layers and the organics involved in them.why is there such a multiple cross-correlation and what is the mechanism that created each one in such precise fashion to make this correlation appear?Failure to deal with the question of correlations is failure to deal with the issue no matter what you think MAY have been the cause.You link has nothing to do with greenland ice layers or Levin, but is about formation of 14C. Please provide the correct one.Have a happy solstice celebration with your yule tree etc.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So what you claimed originally was false.All that the website shows is that the age of the {glacier\last ice age} was assumed wrong ... in other words that the 14C dating is more accurate than what they had assumed from sedimentary layers alone.from Ice age - Wikipedia: Feel free to find dates for the last ice age from other sources as well.Yes this looks like it is in agreement with the climate info from other sources. Like the greenland ice cores and the antarctic ice cores, and others that extend back well beyond the time of the last ice age, with a continual pattern of annual layers with no marked disruptions or sudden changes in types of layers ... no discontinuities in other words that could be taken as anything else but a continued trend back through time.This is not showing what you think it shows. False. How you reach this conclusion is not supported by this information, this is an invalid conclusion from the data. The 14C data has been corroborated by several sources out to it's theoretical limit of ~50,000 years, and the Lake Suigetsu varves is one of those.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Again, your conclusion does not follow from the data. You cherry pick one glacier from one ice age and ignore the rest of the data,and that 14C data extends back to 50,000 years without record of a flood interfering with the informationand that other ice packs extend back even further than that with uninterupted annual layers. Now back to over 600,000 years of annual layers at both the antarctic ice core layers and at devils hole with a totally different system of annual layers.or do you now claim that the flood occurred over 600,000 years ago?correlations are the issue, not the individual systems but the correlations between them that show they are all in agreement on an old earth with annual layers that not only show an old earth but which also validate the various radiometric (14C and other) dating methods.This is not agreement with a flood scenario, it is invalidation of any flood possible in that time period.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

OEC, GapStill has problems with the discontinuity issue though.

Golfer has really not dealt with the issue here, that both the layer counting and the 14C dates match.All he has done is posit fantastic (whatever) reasons why one or the other could be wrong, but not why both are wrong in the same way at the same time, AND in ways that match other dating methods and data.From http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe last sentence is a little weird because it is attempting to provide a key to the different symbols on the graph and is getting bolixed by the html renditions, but note particularly that the "o" data points are NOT from Lake Suigetsu, but from marine corals by another mechanism for dating and comparing to 14C -- and it matches the line from Lake Suigetsu at 20,000 years and at 21,000 years and at 30,000 years.Specifically these dates come from{abe}And these are not the only correlations involved. From the same source:That makes it correlations to another layer counting method tied to Lake Suigetsu by the climate data from both 14C and 10Be.{/abe}These correlations are what kill all of Golfers "what-if" arguments completely, and as long as he fails to deal with the correlations in any way, his arguments are pure {fiction\fantasy} at best.No alternate explanation of {MULTIPLE} correlations means no possible criticism of any one set of data, because the data is boxed with the other data in these multiple correlations.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*31*2005 10:47 AM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Here's that "botchy" correlation:From http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe last sentence is a little weird because it is attempting to provide a key to the different symbols on the graph and is getting bolixed by the html renditions, but note particularly that the "o" data points are NOT from Lake Suigetsu, but from marine corals by another mechanism for dating and comparing to 14C -- and it matches the line from Lake Suigetsu at 20,000 years and at 21,000 years and at 30,000 years.{abe}Note you could draw a straight line through the first 8000 years and extend that out to about 26,000 years before there was any divergence of the data from a straight line correlation. This means that the first 26,000 years correlation is as good as the first 8,000 years. The change after that comes from climate changes that affected the ratio of 14C in the atmosphere.{/abe}Enjoy.Edited graphic to show straight line, in RED. Also edited it to highlight some of the coral data correlations, in MAGENTA, data points that are also correlated with annual layers from both arctic and antarctic ice cores. See previous post Message 288.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*31*2005 05:42 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.