Age Correlations and an Old Earth

All watersheds characteristics would be different, meaning Lake Suigetsu, doesn't have the clays that Lake Walensee had, giving its varves a different look, I just don't see Lake Suigetsu supporting the fossil record is millions of years old, if water is leaching C-14 into solution, diluting, would explain the slightly exagerated varve ages in Lake Suigetsu, snow varves are bogus, and cave calcium deposits doesn't support the fossil record is old. It all correlates quite well that the fossil record is young, however it all does suggest the earth itself could be older than the fossil record, meaning the rocks should date older than the fossils, even the tree rings supports this to be true, but does support my contention that the tree fossils would be at least 10,000 years old, I showed you where ancient human bones were ground and dated by C-14 to be 5,000 years or younger, guess the OLD Earth Creationists are right, the fossils are young, the book of Genesis is literally correct, heaven and earth were created in the beginning kjv Genesis 1:1, meaning the rocks are quite old, but Genesis 1:3 meaning the fossils are quite young, Old Earth Creationists call it the gap theory, etc...P.S. If 13,350 years ago God caused the sun to be the light, and if one God day is as a thousand of our years 2 peter 3:8, then 11,350 years ago God caused trees to start to grow, coral, algae, herbs. Then this correlates quite well with your tree ring data, coral buried beneath the flood sediments, given snow varves is bogus, and calium stalagtites doesn't support the fossil record is not young, it all seems to correlate quite well with the gap theory, etc...

Then the C14 samples near the sediment surface would be more leached out with the C14 migrating to lower levels and inverting the data. The C14 is not free atoms but tied up in organic molecules which means that any leaching process would have to {free\replace} the carbon from those compounds.Correlations of varves with known historical data and with known climatological data shows them to be accurate for those dates, and the only way for them to be accurate for those dates is for them to be annual varves.It correlates with an old earth. It correlates with old fossils. It correlates with a continuous annual record stretching back to 567,700 years minimum unbroken by intervals and unexplainable by super long days. I correlates with fossil coral heads that show daily layering in addition to annual layering both for current coral and for coral 400 million years old (see CoralGrowth and Geochronometry (Nature, March 9, 1963 By Prof. John W. Wells), with 400 day years consistent with the younger solar system dynamics, correlating to the astrophysics of the system.The only way to correlate that with "one God day is as a thousand of our years" is to have those "God days" be stretched out with {light\dark} and {summer\winter} intervals long enough in real seconds, minutes and hours to be just exactly like real life calendar type years, and not just thousands long but billions. At this point all you are doing is redefining "YOM" to be whatever it needs to be to make it work out to match real time ... say hello to kofh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I thought the reason Snelling wood fossil became petrified was because water mineralized it. I hope your right that varve fossils isn't displacing organic carbon molecules in the upper layer's, that would mean that Snellings petrified wood sample is young and the surrounding sandstone that surrounds it would of sheltered it from any thorium contamination in the basalt. This would mean Snelling wood sample can not be old. However if C-14 is soluable, then the capillary solutes would diffuse it out of your varves, but not immediately because the sediments shelter it from the waters above. This is probably why you don't see it in the natural, is that the lower varve layers are diffusing upward and downward, by the capillary solute pump, etc...Now I'm not a scientists but Walt Brown said lower varves C-14 drops too quickly to be a proportional to your curves, supporting the biblical deluge. It was interesting that its documented that varves can form more than one per year. When you factor the biblical flood glaciers, its silts, clays and organic materials, in the flood sediments contributing to varve formation as they melted. The coral before the flood having ocean tidal currents producing tidal varves. You have potential for 100's of thousands of varves. Are not massive coral fields covered by up in some places by a mile of flood sediments in Texas, meaning you had tremendous amounts of sediments in the biblical flood, not to mention massive amounts of coral that grew for the 5,000 years before the biblical deluge(if one day is a thousand years). Tis means they were growing from the 3rd creation day 3,000 years before man came on the scene. Then these coral were covered by the biblcal flood sediments. Then the whole area was raised up above the oceans (coral could not of grown but in oceans pre-flood),when the mountains rose and the oceans settled (psalm 104), explaining how these coral fields In Texas lifted up, with over a mile of sediments giving us the oil fields of Texas. Walt Brown explains liquefacation water lens, how different density particles
float to different layers within the settling sand, silts, clays, fossils, in a liquefacation water lens. This supporting how 100's of thousands or more varves formed perfectly similar, stratified, varves as the particles settled in the liquefaction lens (with fish pressed into thinness of paper in the liquefaction lens press),as the sediments pressed out these waters, and these pressed out waters continually supported the liquefacation lens happening above to continually stratify the silt, clays and organics as they were settling (actually floating forming layerings)part of the settling processes, over the fresh continental waters, would think though over the oceans the salts would of prevented natural varve formation over the oceans, by tying the particles together to colloids, preventing separating layerings over the ocean, leaning your C-14 dating only supports the flood sediments(which your probably claiming a climatic condition), and the last 4,350 years. Too me, capillary porosity by processes similar to mineralization are causing water solutes to move vertically to lesser solute levels, by capillary movements because of the containment of clays, silts, explaining why the surface varve contained organic's takes time to diffuse by the capillary solute pump, that is run by solutes seeking to equalize to lesser solute concentrations, etc...P.S. Its ok it hardly makes sense to me. Basically by liquefacation, with water present particles float within the liquefaction lens giving you stratified layerings that are consistent over the continents, over the last 4,350 years. Too me this means you should have varve similarities. There is over a mile of sediments coverering the corals in Texas (El Capitan) these organics would create the illusion they are older, meaning varves organics that formed during the flood would date thousands not millions of years old, but like Snellings mineralized wood fossil would of leached out by mineralization, the C-14 making these layers date older than they actually are. Though snow varves, cave calcium varves don't have much value to OEC's, and lake varve formation could form many layers by Walt Browns liquefaction water lens principles, depending on the watersheds. Interestingly the biblical deluge the whole world was the watershed. I realize you have your kettle lake, suspect though its not what it appears it to be. Its kinda like you will not be persuaded by Snelling's wood fossil. I too suspect your lower varves are not telling the whole story, too, etc... I'm kinda all talked out, gave my two cents. Its funny, feel it has more value than your two cents, guess we all believe were right, though I'm sure some facts probably support your belief, even though think there is more to the facts than we know, to quote your favorite saying; We are limited by our ability to understand, by our ability to understand. The apostle Paul said we look as through muddy waters, but after the resurrection all things will be clear or something like that, so I'm kinda wingin it too. In heaven we will know if its an old earth or a young earth and how it all came to be. In heaven the young earthers and the old earthers will be in agreement. It won't much matter then because it will be a new heaven and a new earth, to them that are saved. etc...

I'm tied up and can't participate right now, but I just wanted to say thanks for the punctuation and grammar improvements.--Percy

out of all of that, the parts that I thought were correct were: the rest was jumbled jargonese with no relationship to correlations or actual facts.thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Welcome to whateverworld.

Yo, RazzyD, don't you know? The earth is flat in some areas, flatter than Twiggy's chest. Sometime in the future, most likely past us, we will get a really good grip on the age of the earth. The number will be so staggeringly high, we won't be able to count it out on our fingers and toes. How do I know that? In the beginning.....God created the heavens and the earth and then forgot to lay down exactitudes and left us to struggle figuring out who's beginning. Well, I am tempted to guess his beginning. Also, why on earth make it void and dark and full of water, why not just go ahead and .... well, you know where I'm going with this. Lake Siugetsu? It's Titicaca for me. You work too hard, thanks for all the inf.

Oh, one more thing. What's a 'flate arther'?

mythical king with gas?

hindu creationists complain that the ages found by scientists are nowhere near old enough for the real age of the universe and life in it.I expect some fine tuning of the age of the earth but no staggering changes. I would be very surprised by a change of an order of magnetude (multiple of 10).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ahahahaaaaaaaaaaa, full 'a beans? No, not you! The king. It's actually the same as a 'fla tearther', a musical term from soap operas.
You see that? I do hope your expectations about the age of the everythings will be exactly as you expect.
I'm easy.

Oh, one more thing. Your little guy on the left...you know the one that jumps out of whatever he jumps out of? He startles me every time, I think he's gonna lick me or something. teehee

quote:

---

However if C-14 is soluable, then the capillary solutes would diffuse it out of your varves,

---

If ¹⁴C is soluble then so is ¹²C. It is not the raw amount of ¹⁴C that is measured, but the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C. You must show how one isotope of carbon, with the same solubility properties as the other isotope of carbon, is preferrentially solubilized in aquatic environments. This is the only way that I see, without in situ conversion of nitrogen to ¹⁴C by exogenous radioactive decay. By the way, you might want to check out how small amounts of ¹⁴C can be caused by radiation in nearby rocks, this may explain a lot.

quote:

---

Now I'm not a scientists but Walt Brown said lower varves C-14 drops too quickly to be a proportional to your curves, supporting the biblical deluge.

---

We have all seen the data. There is no such drop-off for 40,000 years. If you think it exists, please show us the graph. Also, maybe you could tell us why U/Th dates agree with the carbon ratios. In fact, please tell us why every other nuclide series used for dating agrees with carbon dating.All you have given us is ad hoc hypotheses (again). You must back up your assertions with data, not by repeating the same misused jargon over and over. Hey, just for starters explain how ¹⁴C but not ¹²C is leeched out as an explanation for why carbon dating is so far off.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-23-2004]

I would be astonished by a change of 5%. There are just too many precise, independent radioisotope dates on too many meteorites.

see
EvC Forum: Please ban moving avatars.
and
EvC Forum: Please ban moving avatars.like you should complain ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}