Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Its quite interesting your tree rings supports that the fossil record is quite young, Humphreys did bring out an interesting problem with heliums in the granites, that shouldn't be there, Snelling brought out that argon 36 is being released to the atmosphere in oil off gases(the same as the atmosphere), and were to believe that there are not other like problems with all the dating methods, due to leaching, or simply due to proportional translocation of minerals in the rock sediments even before they erupted out of the earth, but did find it interesting that your tree rings supports the fossils are quite young, and brings to light questions on the viablility of toe, etc...P.S. Perhaps we should simply replace toe with ID, what has toe to offer that ID has not, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-09-2004]

Intelligent Design has no problem with the sciences of it all, but no interest in the theory of toe, given toe believes in micro-evolution too, they only disagree on the interpretation of cladistic similarities, toe believes in a common ancestor, ID says its all evidence of a common designer, irruducible complexities, etc... given the lack of transitional fossils between the different kinds, the evidences support life was designed and cladistic similarities without adequate fossil transitional evidence between the different kinds supports a common designer, darwin was wrong about the origin of the species, no evidence, to support his position, cladistic similarities only supports a common creator, etc...I think you all believe the earth was created in the beginning, possibly 4 billion years ago, but your problem is that the earth was void without form for 4 billion +/- years, until God moved upon the face of the waters 13,350 approximate years past, it says darkness was upon the face of the deep, guess starlight couldn't reach through the frozen waters covering the face of the deep, however when God said let there be light, God turned its nucleur switch, the sun became a light (star)day 1, melting the void frozen waters of the earth, day 2 creation of the granites with the excess helium, and on day 4 God moved the earth to a proper distance from the sun, moon, and in a proper orbital plane in respect to the zodiac to maximize the light cast upon the earth, setting the sun and the moon in a proper proportional distance to be the same size in the sky, this is how he created them to be a light unto the earth for the creatures created on day 5 and 6, and it was good, and it still is, etc...P.S. This is one perspective that an Old Earth Creationists might take, where the rocks would date old, but the fossils would be quite young, the problem is the evolutionists had no way to date fossil imprints, so they created an illusion that its possible to date these old rocks and say these young fossils buried within are that old, etc... the problem any way you look at it all, the fossils are young, so guess this makes the creationists, even those believing the earth is young, accurate in respect to fossil age, and toe is deceiving children that the fossils can be dated by the sediments that buried them, perhaps the very reason they want to keep creationisms out of the public domain, children would question the illusion of time, that the fossils are as old as these old rocks, challenging with a whole slew of questions, etc...This is but one senerio, of how it all happened, biblically, scientifically, the one not conflicting the other, rocks could date old, fossils could be young, but agree isotope dating methods are not without problems, but its not such a reach as dating a fossil imprint and determining its age by the earth that buried them, though you really have to respect the YEC bringing to light all the problems with isotope dating methodologies, argon rising, problems with radioactive decay constants, leaching, C-14 in coal, showing its not the age of the sediments that buried the coal, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-09-2004]

Crashfrog, I don't see transitional evidences, though I see micro-evolution happening, but so do creationists, ID people, I'm going to take a break from this thread, the biggest problem is simply that evolutionists are dating rocks, counting questionable varves, though tree rings is interesting, but like varves affected by seasonal rain/snow fluctuations, watersheds, etc...

I do find it interesing your talking thousands of years with tree rings, and varves that does suggest the fossils are not millions of years old, meaning toe is a dead theory, I've hear one could send in a seal fossil dead of a 20 years to get dated and it would likely come back 2,000 years old, or if you bury the fossil for 50 years and then send it in, it might date 5,000 years old, meaning you would get an error of over a factor of 10 in this case, problems like that probably explain how your varves and tree rings seems to be in agreement, but are not, because different fossils take up different amounts of C-14, and it being soluable, transmovement of C-14 by say the biblical flood waters, or even ground water movements, would also dilute the age given too, but say we agree with you, then Snellings mineralized Wood fossil that showed it was young, compared to the age of the surrounding basalt, proves the fossils are young, and the earth old, not that this was what Snelling was trying to establish, given he believes the earth is young, and all he was establishing is like you seem to be saying that the fossil record is not millions of years old, and toe is dead, lets replace it with a more viable theory, like creationisms, it really doesn't matter the age of the earth, what matters is the age of the fossils, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-10-2004]

Abbyleever, I kinda hear you, but still feel lots of factors could account to more than one varve per year, or more than one annual tree ring per year, appears according to Walt Brown site, there is a new way to determine C-14 age, the problem might be, why is there C-14 in all organic fossils ever found, it appears that that the fossil record is quite young, in light that C-14 half life is only 30,000 years, therefore, no old fossils should have any C-14 in their bones, apparently this is not the case, is this another nail in the coffin of toe? does not toe needs the fossils themselves not the rocks that buried them to show they are millions of years old, not thousands of years old, suppose toe will continue to date rocks to date bones, such is the problem with toe, they assume the bones are old, perhaps its time to date the bones themselves, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood On Walts google search engine type: How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimeneven materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those radiocarbon years correspond to a much younger true age.

Coragyps, I don't know much about the lake in question, but would think that storms would stir up the clays including whatever diatoms your talking about, causing an illusion of multiple algae layers, which you probably are mistakening for more than one year, etc...as they resettle quickly, with the pollens, and different particles of clay seal above, etc...P.S. Where I live rainstorms stirs up the waters, might only need a good wind, to stir up the algae blooms, and the silty shallows containing dead algae & silty clays, to create more varves, if the shallower waters gets suspended, with watershed additions of pollens, suspended clays, washing into the lake, the storms winds mixing this all together, the algaes would re-settle first with the pollen, with the clays settling after, many storms a year creating your illusion that many years have passed, it might well be that C-14 is getting diluted proportionally the deeper into the sediments, creating the illusion that C-14 is accurate, that it correlates, etc...

edge, I would think you would agree the shallows would be stirred up, due to how choppy the waters get, due to the wind, you really don't need rain, though that would bring fresh pollen, clays from the watershed, the water itself could be part of transport, where I live the wind presses the level up on the southside when the north wind blows, depending on which way the wind blows affects water levels, one side lower than the other side, it probably doesn't stir the deeper silts, creating your illusion, is not this C-14 water soluable, if so, leaning dilution leaching factors are creating your other illusion, that lower varves are quite old, kinda like how seals
will date older than land animals, but because water solutes equalize over time, its creating your proportional illusion, how I'm not exactly sure, perhaps the clays are playing a factor, in capillary solute water movements between the varves, as different solutes are equalizing, with all the other mineral solutes, because the water above would be fresh water, would not solutes equalize upward, creating your illusion, etc...

Abbyleever, I just don't see how the wind would stir up the deeper silts, would seem to me that the wind would blow the upper levels to and fro, redepositing silts from the shallows over the deeper waters, explaining many varves per year, theorizing that the clays play a factor in how the C-14 is leaching upward, through the clays as solutes seek to equalize, to the fresher waters above, etc...P.S. Is the varves taken from cores of the deeper waters, or the shallows, etc...

I suspected the cores was taken from the deeper silts, that most of the insect parts would of come from the shallows as the wind stirs up the silts in the shallows, transporting to the deeper silts, these insect parts, pollen, which would then settle out first before the finer suspended clays, giving the false illusion of another annual seasonal layering, its also a known fact that trees don't always give one annual tree ring per year, tree rings appear to be related more on rain fluctualtions, where your varves are probably laid down by settling seasonally, and after not only by storms but by windy days, as the surface waters flow to and fro, carrying silts and insect parts over the deeper waters and the particles suspended resettling, on the other note some trees in the tropic don't have annual tree rings, so its all kinda interpretative, how you determine the actual age of the tree by counting the tree rings, meaning some trees with 2,000 annual tree rings could be either 2,000 years old or 1,000 years old, or somewhere in between, meaning it more about the rainfall in the past, so if you calibrate the C-14 methods after trees believed to be older than they actually are, based of what your assuming was the C-14 levels in the atmosphere in the past, and the tree rings counts, all affecting the levels your calculating off these assumptions in the present, though find it interesting you don't feel that dilution affects the concentrations of what you call non soluable, which if true supports Snellings mineralized fossil is actually much younger than the basalt sediments it was found between, proving the dating methods bogus, I was trying to be on your side a bit, that your varves are affected by leaching out of C-14 proportionally affecting your varve dates, but kinda find it interesting how Snellings fossil supports your contention you can not date the sediments and correlate the fossils are old, if you believe insect parts, leaves are not affected by mineralization (non-soluable), meaning not affected by leaching, then your supporting Snellings mineralized wood fossil being young, too, that it had C-14 levels saying it couldn't be as old as the sediments it was found, this is all I'm saying is your varves are affected by dilution, too, but it does all support the fossils are not millions of years old, it all depends I suppose how your correlating the data, if you don't believe in mineralization, leaching, then your varves appear to correlate with tree rings, of certain habitats in certain select, other parts of the world, etc...P.S. Don't get too bent, I'm not a scientists, just theorizing a bit, that your all agreeing with Snellings mineralized wood fossil that its correlated its young too, similar in age to some of your varves, it was just found in sediments, but the organic carbons apparently tells that it correlates to it too being quite young, too, not millions of years old, etc...Where is it documented that storms and windy days not creating new varves, it would be interesting to see these studies, what do they use markers, on the bottom to show its not happening in the now, or are they just assuming its not, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-11-2004]

Until I see some studies showing only one varve is being produced per year, the whole topic is pure speculation, for all I know most of the varves were produced by liquification, water lensing, like in the biblical flood, model, as Walt Brown speculates, etc...P.S. Its easy to draw cores, but suppose its not so easy to prove only one varve is being produced for each year in a controlled study, or you would of supplied one, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-11-2004]

Percy, There really is no reason to believe varves are producing only one varve per year without documentation, I posted Walt Brown who doesn't believe its even possible for varves to form in a kettle lake, explaining it all happened in the last liquefaction water lens event(biblical flood), now in the lake in question, have they found fish compressed into the thinness of a piece of paper, too many questions, but glad your a bit skeptical too, I'm still a bit undecided if Walt is correct in no varve produced per year, or only one varve per year, think its happening how I theorized in spite of what you feel, I don't think scientists are lying, don't feel Walt is lying, and I' speculating, however, in Missouri they have a saying, the prove me state, in this case it seems to have merit, to prove something, even Walt has dropped stuff from his book based on new scientific discoveries, meaning he really is open to the scientific evidences, and is weighing them, if you prove only one varve being produced per year, he would have to weigh your evidence to determine if he should delete his belief no varves produced per year, etc...I was only theorizing that more than one varve was forming in a given year because of the sediments entering a lake, the shallows, the winds, surface water movements, however, apparently Walt Brown doesn't believe its possible to form even a single varve in a kettle lake, don't feel I'm asking too much if the people professing one varve per year to have documentation, so I can decide who's correct, etc...It really shouldn't be to difficult, laying sediment pods on the bottom of lakes and seeing if any sediments are being laid down, over several years(I mean if its so consistently happening), to prove one way or the other, etc...The fact you don't have such a study, makes me quite suspicious, and makes Walts assertions more valid, I'm not a scientist so my hypothesis of many varves per year seems a reach, so it must be that Walts correct no varves being produced annually, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood Type on Walts google site: Testing the Theories7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. However, varves contain fossils, such as fish. Fish, laying on the bottom of a lake, would decay long before enough varves could accumulate to bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, then decay.) Most fish fossilized in varves have been pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, exactly what would happen to a fish compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.Also, varves are too uniform, show no evidence of the slightest erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakeswhere most deposits occur in lakes. Lakes would not produce varves. Varves are better explained by liquefaction.

Coragyps, I couldn't find anything that supported one varve per year, in sediment traps, for kettle lakes, not that no study has not been done, seems its more about ocean sediment traps, its because the lake is a kettle lake, that your erosion your talking about on the shallows might well be contributing to many varves per year, it seems you all believe they are still being formed as they have consistently for thousands of years, one varve per year, so welcome a study that proves your point, etc...

Percy, I think I understand, its kinda like the bible codes correlating the bible being inerrent, though still feel your varves are like finding codes in the bible that maybe the imagination of the searcher, not that there is no codes in the bible, leaning there maybe some parallel similutudes between the varves, in the biblical flood model, and the formation of new varves, but can understand you believe you found something, though I think in kettle lakes can produce more than one varve per year, think its interesting that correlations may exists, not sure if its any different than the bible codes correlating the bible is inerrant, in spite of codes that maybe the imagination of the searcher, etc...P.S. Lets say Walt is correct in that due to the liquefacation lens, varves were produced during the flood model, and after, varves were laid down, one varve, or more than one varve per year, meaning too me the varves might have some accuracy up to 4,350 years ago, in respect to seeing climatic change, and before this related to Walts liquefacation lens, explaining how fish are pressed into the thinness of paper during the biblical deluge, as Walt explained aquifiers are being drawn down compressing the sediments, but in lakes you still have the evidence of his liqefacation lens, when you find fossils pressed into the thinness of paper, so think there probably is a bit of truth in both models, etc...

Abbyleever, I was talking about Australia, perhaps parts of Africa, not becoming engulfed in Glaciation (perhaps it was summer in Australia when the deluge occurred)(the bible says it happened in the second month on the 17th day), and or given the location of the mid-ocean ridges might of accelerated glaciers in the northern hemisphere, though many creatures in the southern hemisphere would of perished, some there, survived, if you take the bible literally, in the northern hemisphere, however, given how the waters were erupting appears more glaciers were formed in the northern hemisphere (fish dying in the frozen glaciers), glaciers containing ash, sediments that were erupting out from the earth, as these waters melted, they would of contributed to accelerated varve formation, in the lakes they formed, depositing your organic, and inorganic clays, so many questions (like dual porosity leaching thorium, C-14, argon, etc..., leaching would explain stalagtites/mites, in caves could of formed quite quickly, suspect its your interpretation, that it happened over long periods of time, when they can form quite quickly, how fast does ice dripping grow on a house in the winter, water is a solvent, it would continually carry whatever your interpreting, perhaps I made a wrong analogy to compare your interpretation to the biblical codes, it might be more like the codes people say they are finding in Moby Dick, like leaching, dual porosity all factors into problems of dating accuracy, though the different dating methods do seem at times to agree one to the other, suspect the decreasing magnetic field affected the past radiometric isotope decay rates, and perhaps in the earth itself, making the earths sediments that erupted out from the earth to make the earth appear much older than it actually is, meaning of course that the rocks erupting out of the earth, would date older than the fossil they buried, but because of dilution, ionic solutes leaching into the waters, affects the accuracy of all the different dating methods, with all the carbon based life buried in the sediments, wouldn't C-14 dilute downward and upward, affecting greater numbers of varve layers, by capillary waters solutes seeking to equalize to lesser solute concentrations, affecting all the different dating methods proportionally that are assumed to be constants, you also have small electric currents in the earth, probably related to the lateral magnetics of the earth that guide the birds, turtles their internal compass to determine latitude, all kinds of factors affecting the proportional leaching of the sediment records, though when I look at a cliff you see dark lines, like perhaps this is one of the water lens, in the liquefaction event expressed the world over, that Walt is talking about, supporting the biblical deluge, etc...P.S. I just see the dating is inaccurate, you seem to believe its cast in stone, though some similitudes of similarities for the last 4,350 years, and some beyond due to the glaciers melting contributing to excessive varves formations as they melted contributing their clays, organics to the settling basins, though feel in a water environment dilution would be affecting non-soluable materials, drawing out the C-14 and tranlocating to lowerer varve layers or to the layers above, as the ionic solutes seek to equalize between the clay varve layers,all these things happening to be muddying the waters in respect to the accuracy of the all the different dating methods, etc...

Loudmouth, I have not really studied varve information, though probably has some merit for the last 4,350 years, before that you would have the varves from the melting glaciers, the flood sediments themselves, and preflood varves, just find it interesting that trees show they are all quite young, by the C-14, and how ancient human bones all tested to be 5,000 years or younger, etc...P.S. I kinda hear you though on dual porosity, though its really quite scientific, capillary waters, solutes seeking to equalize to lesser concentrations, through in the weak electric current of the earth, when you add large amounts of time like the 4,350 years since the biblical world flood, a whole lot of transmovements of ionic solvents, that could affect the dating methods proportionally, where they appears to agree one to the other, though don't believe you can date a rock that buried fossils to be the same age as the fossil (that takes a leap of faith), Rather than argue all this again, think I'm just going to agree to disagree, and take a break, etc...