Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Loudmouth, I have no problem with annual varves being laid down for 5,000 years. I agreed with Razd that clay suspensions was an ongoing suspension settling with organics settling annually first then the clays covering them. The problem is that I agree with the tree ring correlations up to approximately 5,000 years give or take 500 years to account for the flood.Your snow varve correlations are in error in some way matter or form because its been proven to be bogus by an AIG article. I suspect that ice varves like the lower lake varves only show old age when the facts suggest otherwise. Science should be based on facts, not discarding irrefutable information like the testimonies of these WW2 planes.If you would come to believe that the varves in Lake Suigetsu all
formed within approximately the last 5000 years. We would almost
be in complete agreement. They would still correlate with the other lakes because of the same physical reaction of anaerobic digestion causing straight line correlations. It is evidence supporting the Creationists belief the fossils are all young. To correlate the C-14 method to date older based on these varves all being annual varves is not science.If your a scientist you have to be in agreement with Berthaults Laws, its just science. You all are now aware of Berthault Law, or undercurrents in respect to Berthaults Law and likely in agreement that varves can form suddenly in catastrophic conditions.The evidence is actually overwhelming that most of the varves were all laid down when lake Suigestu was formed, and that annual varves have been laid down since.The Creationists have a point that Lake Suigestu is only 5000 years give or take 500 years. With the creationists world flood the lower varves could of already formed before Lake Suigestu kettle depression occured. It could well be that an ice berg floated in on the wings of the Creationist world flood, settling upon the spot of lake Suigestu.If the creationists are right, your correlation still would agree for the last 5000 years give or take 500 years for the flood in respect to correlating to climatic correlations. You ice core varves just don't wash, read the Ice-bound plane flies again! Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Ice-bound plane flies again!
‘Glacier Girl’ reminds us that it doesn’t take millions of years to form deep layers of ice
by Carl WielandThe fascinating news that one of these magnificent ‘planes in ice’ is actually flying again brings to mind their whole amazing story. It is a powerful, real-life testimony against the widespread belief that it takes vast timespans to lay down thick layers of ice.This belief is in any case not the result of any stringent scientific logic so much as cultural indoctrination into the ‘slow-and-gradual’ philosophy that has set itself up in opposition to the straightforward chronology of the Bible. Every time we hear of ‘Glacier Girl’ appearing at another airshow, it can remind us of the stark facts her reappearance has demonstrated.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-18-2004 02:01 AM

Coragyps, I agree with you that these moving pore fluids would deposit mineral carbonates and that they would likely use a weak acid to say they removed the various mineral carbonates. The mineral carbonate stains in an old tub takes more than just a weak acid to clean. I just have a hard time believing they could remove all the C-14 mineral carbonates with a weak acid even if they soaked it overnight.

Razd, Pretty much summed up my present thought in respect to correlations on my last post to Loudmouth. I don't really have much of a problem with correlations to tree ring data and climatic conditions for the last 5000 years plus or minus 500 years for the Creationists world flood.

quote:

---

Loudmouth, I have no problem with annual varves being laid down for 5,000 years.

---

Why only 5k? What changed and what is the evidence for a change in varve deposition?

quote:

---

I agreed with Razd that clay suspensions was an ongoing suspension settling with organics settling annually first then the clays covering them. The problem is that I agree with the tree ring correlations up to approximately 5,000 years give or take 500 years to account for the flood.
Your snow varve correlations are in error in some way matter or form because its been proven to be bogus by an AIG article.

---

Whoa! Now THERE'S an authority. Do you really trust those folks after they've misled you so many times?

quote:

---

I suspect that ice varves like the lower lake varves only show old age when the facts suggest otherwise. Science should be based on facts, not discarding irrefutable information like the testimonies of these WW2 planes.

---

The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of.

quote:

---

If you would come to believe that the varves in Lake Suigetsu all
formed within approximately the last 5000 years. We would almost
be in complete agreement. They would still correlate with the other lakes because of the same physical reaction of anaerobic digestion causing straight line correlations. It is evidence supporting the Creationists belief the fossils are all young. To correlate the C-14 method to date older based on these varves all being annual varves is not science.

---

Let me get this straight. You think that varves work back to a date of 5ka? Why the change of processes? What is the evidence for it? How do the older varves look different? These are the kind of questions you need to learn to ask.

quote:

---

If your a scientist you have to be in agreement with Berthaults Laws, its just science.

---

Berthault's demonstrations are meaningless. He has shown nothing that isn't taught in a Geology 101 class. Can you state one of Berthault's Laws for us?

quote:

---

You all are now aware of Berthault Law, or undercurrents in respect to Berthaults Law and likely in agreement that varves can form suddenly in catastrophic conditions.

---

No. Those are not varves. You are conflating cross laminations of a storm deposit and varves. Berthault and AIG hope that you will continue to be confused.

quote:

---

The evidence is actually overwhelming that most of the varves were all laid down when lake Suigestu was formed, and that annual varves have been laid down since.

---

Is this Berthault again? Do you know what grain size of sediments he used in his demonstrations? Do you realizew that this has nothing to do with silt and clay sedimentation such as that at Lake Suigetsu?

quote:

---

The Creationists have a point that Lake Suigestu is only 5000 years give or take 500 years. With the creationists world flood the lower varves could of already formed before Lake Suigestu kettle depression occured. It could well be that an ice berg floated in on the wings of the Creationist world flood, settling upon the spot of lake Suigestu.

---

Are you just making this up as you go? You complain about others not doing 'real' science and the write something like this?

quote:

---

If the creationists are right, your correlation still would agree for the last 5000 years give or take 500 years for the flood in respect to correlating to climatic correlations. You ice core varves just don't wash, read the Ice-bound plane flies again!

---

Sorry, been there, done that. It is not convincing at all. But if you wish to believe the story, that's just fine with me. You might ask Wieland sometime just how far away the ice cores were collected from the airplane find.

I have to repeat that nobody has disputed that the bacteria eat kerogen - and you have not yet shown that it is relevant.The fact that you go on and on about this rather than simply admitting your error is non-productive and dishonest.

The bathtub deposits that don't immediately disintegrate in, say, 5% hydrochloric acid are probably gypsum, not carbonates. Trust me on this - my living comes largely from removing very similar stuff from oil wells.

I've asked for information on the topography of the lake, watershed, core samples of the watershed. It appears all you have to base your varves is on a few core samples. Do you really believe you are not the one being misled? Answers in Genesis folks are just like you all looking at the natural evidences. No one supplied evidence on this thread concerning how Lake Suigestu formed. Check back on this thread of the link supporting kettle lakes formed as extreme blocks of ice from the glaciers settled causing the kettle to form. Do you realize how far beneath the ice this plane was found. Was the cores done on the same glacieral ice flow. I heard it moved horizonal, but not vertical. If the cores were taken on the same ice flow where the planes were believed to be, then the varves are not bogus. If the cores would of been taken on another ice flow then they would not necessarily of been bogus, if it too measured the snow fall in the last 50 years. It would be interesting if a different ice flow was used, however if the ice core was not fractured that it moved vertical, if the entire flow moved, then I don't see the problem. I stated Berthault's Laws in a previous post. I agree it would likely agree with geology, its science is it not, that according to Berthault particles of different sizes will sort vertically, including settling in still water, and within moving water. Why would it not include silt and clay sedimentation? How do you feel Lake Suigetsu formed? Is your answer I have no idea? Perhaps you should look to the people at AIG rather than stereotype them? Its like your pointing your finger at them and have three fingers pointing back at you?Checked out their site and they believe Bethaults laws still apply in regards to green river, but they agree that it was a multiple catastrophy. Its not a direct parallel to how a kettle lake's formed. Bethaults law takes into account currents producing multiple varves in short amounts of time, and at green river you have no indication of erosion between varves according to the AIG people.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-18-2004 01:10 PM

PaulK, That bacteria that have been found that eat the carbon in kerogen is relevant. Its causes the C14 and C12 both to come out of the kerogen into the bacteria. All the different kinds of carbon is not bound in the bacteria as it is bound within the cellose of a leaf, its part of the newly evolving carbon cycle.I'd repost the link of the article, but I'm at the library using their computer and don't have the link handy.

as far as the bogus AIG article on the airplane, see:http://www.answersincreation.org/greenlandair.htm Lots of snow does not mean lots of annual layers of snow, which are demarcated by changes in the gas content locked within the snow: there is a difference between summer and winter in the gas fractions, and these tell when one starts and the other stops regardless of the actual depth involved.Looks like you do not understand this method either. NOR the fact that climate is ALSO involved in those gas fractions and that they CORRELATE with the climate shown by other systems in a manner consistent with them all showing great age to the earth.Enjoy.

---

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

??? you accept the correlations up to 5ka+/10% but not afterward ... not because you have any evidence of any change in conditions ... but because you want to believe something else happened ... you accept the correlations back until a supposed flood for which there is NO evidence, in spite of the age measurements continuing with no marked discontinuity NOR any disruption of the CORRELATIONS of age and climate, such that several entirely different mechanisms need to be employed in order to make the observed age and climate correlations all appear consistent in all corners of the earth ... many independent mechanisms all employed to intentionally look like old age? You would be better off arguing that the world is flat. and you take my post pointing out this very problem as corroboration of your view?In actual fact you have yet to start discussing the correlations. All you have done is post fiction after fiction. And you have not really addressed a single criticism of your fictions that (in several different ways) have shown them to be non-applicable at best.

---

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

It isn't relevant because UNLESS the bacteria selectively eat C14 it doesn't make the material appear older. That's already been pointed out to you so you have no excuse for saying otherwise.

Sigh. Typical creationist; immediately buys into any loony idea that supports his preconceptions, without any critical thinking. Or any other kind of thinking.The plane landed and was buried in a coastal area, where there's lots more snow each year than there is in the central areas where the ice cores are taken. See Creationist Comedy.And, of course, we don't assume anything about the amount of snowfall per year; we can distinguish annual layers in the ice, using several different and independent methods, and known markers (such as volcanic ash from known eruptions) show up just where we'd expect them to.

Razd, Ice varves do appear to be based off a ratio of O18 to O16, however it appears that O18 is suspect do to evaporation rate of ocean at time of snow formation and how far it travels before deposition.The Creationists appear to see the annual layers being thicker which would make sense because not all snowfalls would have the same O18 to O16 ratio. This makes sense on where the O18 to O16 uptake occured.The many snowfalls that covered the ww2 plane likely has many different layers of O18 to O16 based off where the snow storms developed. An example of this would be snow storm developing over warmer ocean currents would have more O18, those that develop over colder oceans out of the warmer ocean currents would have less O18 in the particualar snowstorm represented by what appear evolutionists would call one annual varve.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis Given core dating is suggesting a world catastrophy happened 5,200 years ago. Interestingly they didn't date the ice core, but used carbon dating to date the organics found. It might well be that it will be the C-14 dating methods that will be ice core dating ultimate demise.Columbus - Nov 10, 2003
The latest expeditions to ice caps in the high, tropical Peruvian Andes Mountains by Ohio State University scientists may shed light on a mysterious global climate change they believe occurred more than 5,000 years ago.
Ice Cores May Yield Clues To 5,000-Year-Old MysteryIt sure will be interesting when they finally carbon 14 dating all these Carbon sources of life 2 miles under the Greenland ice believed to be millions of years old. Did anyone hear if these results were yet published, or is there a conflict with dating conflicting with ice varve?Public release date: 13-Aug-2004Greenland ice core project yields probable ancient plant remainsA team of international researchers working on the North Greenland Ice Core Project recently recovered what appear to be plant remnants nearly two miles below the surface between the bottom of the glacial ice and the bedrock.Researchers from the project, known as NGRIP, said particles found in clumps of reddish material recovered from the frozen, muddy ice in late July look like pine needles, bark or blades of grass. Thought to date to several million years ago before the last ice age during the Pleistocene epoch smothered Greenland, the material will be analyzed in several laboratories, said researchers.The suspected plant material under about 10,400 feet of ice indicates the Greenland Ice Sheet "formed very fast," said NGRIP project leader Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute. "There is a big possibility that this material is several million years old -- from a time when trees covered Greenland," she said.
Greenland ice core project yields probable an | EurekAlert!This message has been edited by Craig, 12-18-2004 06:55 PM

Forget about the bacteria unless you can show that they actually can and do affect the relative proportions of ¹⁴C within dead and buried samples at the bottom of a lake.Look at the problem of CORRELATIONS:We know that tree-rings occur on a natural basis: it is observed to happen.We know that the sizes of tree rings changes with climate changes, longer warmer summers producing wider rings.We know that this pattern of climate change is distinctive enough that we can overlap tree specimens and know where one picks up and the other leaves off, the overlap provides the continuity to years further and further into the past.We know that this climate pattern is global and that we see the same pattern in many different species of trees from many different places in the world.We also know that there are significant climate events that have occurred in the historical period, and we use these as tests on the ring counting methods: yes, the little ice age occurs, right on time. Across all the tree species used.Think of this as a check that the "clock" is neither fast nor slow. Tree-rings pass the test.Then we have the Lake Suigetsu clay\diatom varves, another pattern of annual deposition, with the added twist of organic samples buried in the varves that can be tested by ¹⁴C dating to check that the ¹⁴C "clock" is neither fast nor slow.... we see that it is a little "fast" (things appear younger by 5 to 10% by ¹⁴C dating).We also know that ¹⁴C dating is susceptible to errors from variation in starting levels of ¹⁴C, back when the organic specimen was living and taking in carbon and other elements in the course of living. We know those variations are due to climate variation as that is what affects the production of ¹⁴C from ¹⁴N.SO we correlate ¹⁴C with the tree-rings and get a graph of ¹⁴C versus tree-ring years and we can do the same with the Lake Suigetsu varves and ¹⁴C dates:

From A 45.000 YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM JAPAN (click): Those "wiggles" are the effects of climate on the ¹⁴C dates, and they show up in the same pattern in two different sets of data from two different parts of the world. Again, from the article: This says that beyond the maximum age from the tree-ring data that the ¹⁴C versus the varve layers correlate with the atmospheric variations in original ¹⁴C levels that come from a variety of other sources. But there is more: just as there was a significant climate event that could be used to check the clock of the tree-ring methods, there is another that comes into play here, the "Younger Dryas" period: The varve clock is within 200 years at 10,000 years (a 2% error, not bad eh?) ... and that same dip appears in the tree-ring data (yes they go back that far), you can see it in the graph above -- the wiggly line shown is the tree-ring data.Think of this as another check that the "clock" is neither fast nor slow. Both tree rings and the Lake Suigetsu varves pass the test. We are past your 5000 years +/- 10% and the clocks are ticking right on schedule, matching information from many other sources ...

---

Note further, from Younger Dryas - Wikipedia:
And from www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences

---

ie - many independant confirmations of the Younger Dryas period timing that CORRELATE to the dates provided in the Lake Suigetsu varves.Then there is the Oldest Dryas Period ... and the last Glacial Maximum ... and the ¹⁴C data from the Lake Suigetsu match the timings of those major climate events as well.If you think of this CORRELATION of ¹⁴C against climate as another check that the varve "clock" is neither fast nor slow, then this too has passed the test.The correlations are the problem for any assault on the age of the earth calculations from these annual event counting methods: it is one thing to question the method and nitpick away with fantastic fantasy scenarios, but they fail to provide any reason for the CORRELATIONS to appear as they do for all these methods in all these places.Enjoy.

---

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

And, of course, the correlations disprove all the YEC "what if ..." scenarios.