Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Biological Contamination (anerobic gasing, humic acid colloidals resorting, including mineralizing the fossils being dated) all would naturally inflate lake varve correlations in the lakes correlated.Gases from anaerobic digestion would sort upwards in agreement with a natural inflated dates(C14 transport). Saying no anaerobic digestion takes place in the absense of oxygen would be what you would have to be saying for contamination not to be trumping correlations in the lakes correlated.It doesn't take much to cause inflated dates when the carbon sink (organics are digesting)is sorting C14 via carbon dioxide upwards including carbonates reactions and those catalzed by the humic acids that have the affinity to form colloids that could sort based off pressure and density (anaerobic gassing reduces density) via anaerobic digestion processes.The increased pressures in an aquifier its the water that naturally press the particles apart. This simply physical law allows for transport of gases upward with increasing depth, dual porosity includes micro movement of solutes that are all apart to cause a proportional sorting of the ratio of carbon with inflated values.I agree in advance that the colloids clays formed by humics acids likely would slow (plugged)slowing the C14 and other gases migration upwards, causing values of the correlations to be inflated downward proportionally with non-random numbers.

You're describing a mechanism by which contamination could cause lake varves to date older than they actually are. It isn't necessary to consider the specifics of your proposal because whether such mechanisms exist isn't the issue. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. For the sake of discussion in this thread it makes sense to grant the existence of such mechanisms.The actual issue is how the variety of different mechanisms affecting the dating of tree rings, varve layers, ice layers, coral and radiometric dating could do so in such a way as to all correlate with one another.In other words, you claim a biological contamination mechanism for lake varves, then you claim another mechanism affecting tree rings, another mechanism for ice layers, yet another mechanism for coral, yet another for radiometric dating, and all these different mechanisms have an identical end result that causes all the dating numbers to still agree with one another.Please.--Percy

This has been refuted before Charley, Bret, Craig, johnfolton, tim, tom, The Golfer, ... whatever (did you get a medal for the most user names yet?).You still need to deal with the clay layers being annual layers that give the same ages as the biological samples: thus positing contamination of one does not refute the result of the other and the correlation between them - what it shows is that contamination is NOT an issue.The data from the lake also correlates with other data for age and climate, both in the tree rings and in the ice layers. How can it do that with contamination in one system being the answer? How can they all be wrong in exactly the same way, time and amount?Maybe it's time you looked further than Lake Suigetsu, seeing as you seem to have a hang-up here. Look at the layers from the ice cores - north, south and inbetween.Start with the low latitude ice cores are from the Peruvian altiplano, a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Rising over it is the Quelccaya ice cap with a summit elevation of 5670 m and a maximum summit thickness of 164 m.Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)This is a slide showing the marked bands on the ice in South America, alternating dust layers with ice layers:
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)From the slide description:

quote:

---

The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).

---

Quotes from later slides:

quote:

---

When scientists drill into the ice cap, they recover what are essentially fossil pieces of ice containing crucial information about past climate.

​

hree deep core sections (from 122m, 130m, and 139m) show distinct annual bands produced by the deposition of dust during the dry season (dry season dust layers are represented by triangles). While annual bands provide accurate relative dating (the age of each ice band is known to be a year apart from directly adjacent bands), paleoclimatologists also search for absolute dates within a core chronology. The surface of the ice cap provides one absolute date. For example, the top layer of a core drilled in 1983 is known to date from 1983; scientists can then date deeper layers relative to the surface. Scientists also attempt to locate absolute dates deeper in the core to improve the accuracy of the chronology. At Quelccaya, for instance, a thick layer of volcanic ash was found in a layer initially dated at 1598. Looking into historical records of colonial Peru, paleoclimatologists found that a massive eruption of the volcano Huaynaputina had occurred in 1600. Using the absolute date of 1600 for this layer, they were able to revise their chronology and improve its accuracy.

​

One of the most salient features in the last millennium of climate history is the Little Ice Age, a loosely-defined period of cold temperatures and increased climatic variability that has been documented in many parts of the globe.* As this figure shows, the Little Ice Age is identified in the Quelccaya climate record as a period of 'colder' (more negative) d18O roughly bracketed between 1550 A.D. and 1900 A.D.

---

These cores don't extend to the time of the tree ring data, but they correlate with the climates in those rings, specifically with "the little ice age," and they also correlate with the climates in the other two ice core data fields.The next ice core is from the Dunde Ice cap in tibet
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

quote:

---

For over 40,000 years, snow has been piling up on this 60 km2 ice cap deep in China's sparsely inhabited interior.

​

After hauling their equipment to 5325 m above sea level, scientists set up a small gas-powered drill. While there are minor variations in drilling technology and techniques, all drills use the same basic idea: a drill bit is lowered into the core hole and cuts out a cylinder of ice that is then carefully extracted from the core sleeve and analyzed both on site and in the laboratory. Since Quelccaya is at the edge of the moist Amazon Basin while Dunde is wedged between two deserts, it is not surprising that accumulation rates are much higher at Quelccaya. Indeed, the annual average accumulation at Quelccaya in meters of water equivalent is 1.15 m compared to just .43 m at Dunde. Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment.

​

While Quelccaya provides high-resolution clues to the last 1500 years of climate, Dunde stretches back over 40,000 years, well into the last ice age.

​

The most prominent feature in the Dunde ice record is the transition between the last glacial maximum (in the Pleistocene epoch) and the present Holocene epoch.

---

And matching up to the dates for Lake Suigetsu ... and the climate pattern. They correlate age with climate, with ice, with clay & diatoms and leaves ....Then go on to the two big core data sets:

• Ice Cores in Greenland have annual layers going back 110,000 years.
• Ice Cores in Antarctica have annual layers going back 650,000 years now (extended from the 422,776 years in the article above with new research).

They also correlate with the climate for Lake Suigetsu to match the ages due to annual layers there and the 14C data. Then they go on to much greater ages.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added little ice age info, Dunde Ice core info

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.Radioactive decay is an exponential decay curve, not a constant rate over time.The effect of contamination and background levels is an additive error - it can cause high readings, but not low readings, thus making things appear younger than they really are - but it adds the same error to any sample.If we have two curves, one "clean" data and one "contaminated" data, they would look something like this (with the "contaminated" one above the "clean" data curve)There is the same vertical displacement at any point between the curves, where the y-axis is the amount of 14C and the x-axis is the time for decay. This delta between the curves is intentionally exaggerated here to make the point.The point is that the error induced by contamination and background levels is low initially, so the age data result is reliable.But certainly by the time you have reached point {1} above you have more error induced by the background radiation and contamination than you have available data, and the method is unreliable at that point because of that fact.The point where the method becomes unreliable is based on the difference between the curves and the amount of error one is willing to put up with ... perhaps somewhere around 10% (using real delta curves not these exaggerated ones)Does that make the issue a little clearer for you?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : pasted rest of post, formating

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The glaciers that remain are melting in the upper northern-most third of the globe which shows the ice age closed approximately 11,000 -12,000 years ago. We're getting closer to the biblical correlation of 5400 years ago, but the scientist are now mentioning that the glaciers formed 11,000-12,000 years ago.I find this interesting as the glaciers melt the peat bogs in the northern most hemisphere area's of the globe are not dating hundreds of thousands of years old but carbon dating around 11,000-12,000 years ago.If trees were growing 11,000 to 12,000 years (creation day 3) ago then it correlates to the bible (if one day is as a thousand years in genesis), etc... The peat bogs certainly are not correlating to an old earth, thus somethings amiss in the ice varve inflated correlation data.-----------------------------------------------------------------
The UCLA-Russian Academy of Sciences team found no peatland dates earlier than about 16,500 years ago, suggesting that no large northern peatland complex existed before that time.Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded.http://www.Sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/10/061012183530.htm--------------------------------------------------------------Ice varves annual interpretation too like lake varves appear inflated only because the uniformitists belief in an old earth. With all the glaciers melting exposing the peat bogs in the northern hemisphere all dating younger, its refreshing to see scientists admitting peat bogs no evidence that any are older than 16,000 years old.-------------------------------------------------------------Are there 110,000 annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet?
The claimed 110,000 annual layers in the GISP2 ice core to near the bottom of the Greenland ice sheet is not a straightforward deduction. The annual layers, indeed, show up well near the top of the ice sheet. However, the situation becomes much more complicated deeper down in the ice sheet. Essentially, the uniformitarian scientists must make assumptions for the bottom and middle portion of the ice sheet in order to determine the annual layers. Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years? | Answers in Genesis

That is because that area was covered by ICE 16,000 years ago - vegetation to form peat won't grow beneath an ice sheet. [qs]The lack of basal dates older than about 16.5 ka suggests that there was no extensive peatland complex in the northern circumpolar region during the LGM (Fig. 2). This finding is corroborated by palynological data that indicate a paucity of Sphagnum (peat moss) spores from deposits of this age (15). Before 16.5 ka, much of the North American and European arctic and subarctic were still covered in ice, and it is likely that the large ice-free areas of Siberia and Beringia were too cold and dry (16) to promote extensive peatland development. This absence of any significant northern peatland complex during the LGM is consistent with the depressed CH4 levels and the relatively low proportion of northern CH4 sources observed in ice-core records (Fig. 3).[/q]From the paper your link refers to - Science 13 October 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5797, pp. 285 - 288Edited by Coragyps, : add reference

You do have fun don't you?Either you don't understand much relevant here or you are intentionally twisting this information for the fun of it. Last time I checked 16,500 was not between 11,000 and 12,000 years.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

quote:

---

After about 30,000 years ago, the Earth's climate system entered another big freeze-up; temperatures fell, deserts expanded and ice sheets spread across the northern latitudes much as they had done 70,000 years ago. This cold and arid phase which reached its most extreme point sometime around 21,000-17,000 years ago (18,000-15,000 radiocarbon years ago) is known as the Late Glacial Cold Stage (and is also sometimes called the Upper Pleniglacial).

​

The point at which the global ice extent was at its greatest, about 21,000 years ago (18,000 14C years ago) is known as the Last Glacial Maximum. The Last Glacial Maximum was much more arid than present almost everywhere, with desert and semi-desert occupying huge areas of the continents and forests shrunk back into refugia. But in fact, the greatest global aridity (rather than ice extent) may have been reached slightly after the Last Glacial Maximum, somewhere during the interval 19,000-17,000 years ago (17,000-15,000 14C years ago).

---

That doesn't make the peat dating problematic eh? The glacier scrapes the surface ahead of it, piling it into moraines, and when that Last Glacial Maximum retreated it allowed the peatland complex to invade the area left by the retreating glacier at that time.Subsequent deposition of snow that becomes ice over those areas from snow-pack accumulation and the like would bury those peatland complexes without scraping them into moraines, as glacier movement would do.And your article does not talk about the peatland complex forming earlier than had been previously thought but later:

quote:

---

In addition to pinpointing a new source of methane that helped end the ice age, the team's work has established a much earlier date for the formation of these bogs. Until a related discovery announced two years ago by the same researchers, scientists had thought that the northern peatlands did not start forming until 8,000 years ago. But the new research suggests that by that time, 50 percent of today's northern peatlands were already formed.

---

More. Only 110 have been counted. From the original post on this thread:
http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf

quote:

---

The climatic significance of the deeper part of the GISP2 ice core, below 2790 m depth and 110 kyr age, is a matter of considerable investigation and controversy. ... Ice in GISP2 below 2790 m depth is folded and tilted, and shows evidence of unconformities [ Gow et al., 1993]. The O of O in GISP2 above 2790 m matches almost perfectly with the Vostok record [ Sowers et al., 1993]; below that depth, it is far noisier and cannot be aligned with the smoothed Vostok signal [ Bender et al., 1994].

---

The antarctic ice is now dated\counted to 650,000 years.And the climate data correlate between the two for the ages in discussion here. You are missing the point: it is the same age in both ice cores and in Lake Suigetsu and the same climate -- they correlate. They match. And by doing so they validate each other. Not matching would invalidate the concept.Different entirely different annual layer counting systems, dependent on totally different processes for making the layers, getting the same ages and the same climate patterns.You can't just hand wave "inflated" and "uniformitist" over this data and not explain why they have exactly the same apparent ages AND climates. That's not an explanation of the data but a denial that it contradicts your beliefs.Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, it is delusion:

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

If both system ages were due to errors those errors should be from different causes that would make different errors in the ages and climates. The ages AND the climates should not match if they were due to errors.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

While I think the details about lake varves and glaciers is interesting, I don't see what it has to do with dating correlations between them. Isn't Whatever just successfully distracting attention from the topic of the thread?As near as I can tell, Whatever is saying, in effect, "Lake varves have these dating problems, glaciers have these other dating problems," but he isn't addressing how these widely different dating problems (were they real) could affect things in identical ways such that the dates still correlate.--Percy

Not as long as we keep coming back to the correlations. I'm not sure he understands (or chooses to understand) the basic difference between these systems of measurement.He is essentially saying that ¹⁴C can diffuse up and distort the record. The problem is that this is a linear function, and can only distort another linear function by changing the slope.The diatom\clay layering system is quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of annual deposition of clay and diatoms.The ¹⁴C system is exponential decay - the amount lost each year is less than was lost the year before, being based on a fraction of the amount in existence each year.What he needs to change is the straight line (from layers) to the curved line (from radioactive decay):
... in order to "explain" the age of the Lake Suigetsu data as showing ages that are much older than he wants it to be.The Ice Core layering data is also quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of ice\annual accumulation.Conversely the layers that measure the climate changes are NOT linear or curved -- they ARE a ratio between stable isotopes of ¹⁸O atoms and ¹⁶O atoms trapped in the ice when it was formed:http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html

quote:

---

The ¹⁸O value is determined from:
¹⁸O = 103ppt{(¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_s - (¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_std}/(¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_std
where subscript s refers to sample, std refers to standard mean ocean water (SMOW), and ppt is parts per thousand.

​

Independent calibrations of the oxygen isotope-temperature relationship have been developed through the analysis of GISP2 borehole temperature, allowing conversion of isotope-derived surface-temperature histories to temperature-depth profiles [ Cuffey et al., 1992]. Thus it follows that variations with depth in the ¹⁸O of ice in a core reflect past variations of temperature with time at a study site.

---

(some conversion of text for readability)So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age.There is no "diffusion" of ¹⁴C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of ¹⁸O in the Lake Suigetsu data.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : added formula

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The creationists believe the earth was not yet created 16,000 years ago, that too would account for the lack of vegetation. The answering from genesis people link said the uniformitists made assumptions for the mid to lower snow varves.Its like paleotologists assumptions of the age of a fossil based on the layer the fossil is found. The uniformitists need for an old earth appear why the ice varves correlate to lake varves, tree rings, etc...Its not a mystery why the correlations appear to agree(inflating non-random numbers till they agree). Climatics should have some agreement but the problem appears the mid to lower varves and the assumptions used to extrapolate.Ex vice president Gore is concerned about the glaciers melting at an alarming rate. However as the ice varves continue to melt due to the increased solar cycle of the last hundred years all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years.

That still leaves 50,000 years of straight annual layers with no assumptions to hand wave away.Or to accept that the world is really older than you want to believe it is. There is a lot of evidence of things less than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that does not invalidate an old earth.There is a lot of evidence of things more than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that DOES invalidate a young earth.The issue is not the evidence that you accept, but the evidence that you deny that contradicts your position.

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

Again you have provided no mechanism for this "miraculous" correlation between extremely different and divergent systems ... see Stating "it is not a mystery" does not take the mystery away. In that specific location, in spite of expecting to find it only 8,000 years old ...And they are finding rock that is much much older. Rock that shows the effects of scrapping by ice after being formed by geothermic processes.And it other parts of the world -- they are STILL finding evidence of life that is still much much much older.You are cherry picking tid-bits of information and ignoring the total body of evidence that refutes your position.Dodging the issue of correlations does not do you any good: the evidence is still there whether you {believe\understand\accept} it or not.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That's interesting, this article http://brent.xner.net/pdf%20files/Chile3FINAL.pdf claims that not only are there pollen grains and bacteria in ice cores from Greenland, Tibet, Antarctica, and Bolivia dating back 20,000 years (that the scientists have checked so far), but that, in the case of the bacteria, they are able to revive them and check their DNA.With further research, examination of such DNA may wind up being yet another example of support for evolution and an old Earth.Anticipating the next piece of YEC apologetics, how did the post-flood bacteria and pollen burrow several hundred feet from the surface to be discovered at that depth in the ice core?

Not only that but:

quote:

---

Changes in the numbers of bacteria present within non-polar ice appear to be related to changes in climate. For example, in an earlier cooler, wetter period in S. America, the abundance of local vegetation increased and presumably therefore the amounts of airborne particulates will have also increased. Particulates transport bacteria, and the result is an increased number of bacteria in Andean glacial ice formed at that time.

---

There appears to be another correlation with layers and climate from another independent system to record climate information within the annual layers.There is also the matter of the pollen in correlating to climate. We know that pollen from a specific plant, the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, is a marker for climate change, and has the Younger and Older Dryas Periods named after itYounger Dryas - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Younger Dryas stadial, named after the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, and also referred to as the Big Freeze [1], was a brief (approximately 1300 70 years [1]) cold climate period following the Blling/Allerd interstadial at the end of the Pleistocene between approximately 12.7 to 11.5 ky BP [2], and preceding the Preboreal of the early Holocene. In Ireland, the period has been known as the Nahanagan Stadial, while in the UK it has been called the Loch Lomond Stadial.

​

The Younger Dryas is also a Blytt-Sernander climate period detected from layers in north European bog peat. It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 BP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 BP uncalibrated. An Older Dryas stadial had preceded the Allerd, approximately 1000 years before the Younger Dryas; it lasted 300 years [3].

---

As noted in the main article, this period also shows up in the Lake Suigetsu climate data, even though the markers for climate in that system have nothing to do with bacteria or pollen.Pollen samples have been used before to study climate change, and now that there is a technique that can isolate pollen from ice cores without contamination, I expect more correlations to follow.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed paragraph order

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It could also become yet another example of support for Creationism and a young earth.How does one know that the bacteria are 20,000 years (couldn't open the pdf link), are you basing this off uniformitists ice varve dating?Here's a link showing the difference between uniformitists old earth and the creationists view of ice varves.-------------------------------------------------------------Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Grootes and Stuiver, 1997). A storm has a warm and cold sector with different measurements of the variables. These storm oscillations may be on the order of several days. These storms can produce problems in annual counting, even in the uniformitarian paradigm, as Alley et al. (1997, p. 26,378) state:“Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.”Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core.The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale. This is how they manage to ”squeak out’ 110,000 years. Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis

You're not addressing the issue raised by this thread. Your excerpt claims that the varve layers are not actually annual layers, but many sub-annual layers. Other threads can address whether there is any evidence supporting this view, but this particular thread isn't asking whether there are mechanisms that might make young things date old. This thread is asking for the creationist explanation for why, sticking with lake varves, the varve layer counts correlate not only with carbon dating of the same layers, but also with other forms of dating such as tree rings, coral, and ice layers in glaciers.If we focus just on the varve layers and carbon dating of those layers, if the varves actually represent sub-annual layers, then what caused the diminishment of atmospheric ¹⁴C in precisely the correct proportions to make a varve layer that's 1000 layers beneath another varve layer to date 1000 years older in nearly perfect correlation, within measurement and laboratory error, of course. This thread is seeking the creationist explanation for this and other correlations.--Percy