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

Attention is also worth focussing on a couple of other factors:1) The planes were ditched in a coastal region with active ice flow, not on a central highland with essentially no surface flow, where cores were taken.2) The annual snowfall up at the ice core sites is, from my memory, around 10 inches of moisture per year. It's more like 100 inches where the lost planes were buried. (I can Google up the maps again if need be, though the legends were in Danish.) They also are never claimed to give "millions of years" by the actual scientists that cored them out of there. The longest of all cores, in Antarctica, gives 840,000 years, IIRC.And you may not be aware that a trace of volcanic ash in one of the Greenland ice cores matches up, by layer count, to the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. With a seven-year error. That's 0.4% error. ROFL. Not all of them, no. "Euxenic" ones - those with an oxygen-free, hydrogen sulfide-rich bottom layer - do. The Black Sea, f'rinstance. Various deepish mountain lakes, like some of the pretty ones in Switzerland.

A very important point, Reserve, that I trust JonF won't mind me repeating: If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash.

Anaerobic digestion gives carbon dioxide? You better check that, Whatever. I think you'll find that methane is the preferred product. Aerobes give CO2.

Of course not. Any measurement has some error - that's why the roofers bring a couple of extra squares of shingles when they redo your roof. The errors, though, can be rather astoundingly small, as RAZD showed in wonderful detail early in this thread. A recent example of this sort of dating accuracy is in the 16 January 2009 issue of Science (Garrick-Bethell et al.,, vol 323, pp356-359): the footnotes are from various labs: So yes, the rubidium-strontim date is "in error" - it says those moon rocks are nearly 10% older than the other four methods agree on. And tree rings can err, too - but when you get the same answer from trees in Germany, trees in Finland, lake-bottoms in Japan, and stalagmites in Nevada, you have to sort of assume that you aren't too far off on that answer.

Walt Brown is a master at falling into those sort of traps....have you read the section of his book where he talks about where asteroids came from? His "facts" are as far from the realm of the possible as any fantasy could be.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

I'm pretty dang honest, and I don't have to admit any such thing. Since Walt ignores essentially all the geology associated with the place, he tends to lose just a mite of credibility. 'Cause the laws of physics are on our side and not his.Edited by Coragyps, : addition

Try reading the first post in this thread, Daniel. RAZD has already taken care of giving you enough evidence to spend a week on.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

But not a single certified copy of a birth certificate, or a last-known address for any of the people you chronologize from! How can I trust anything you write when you won't back any of it up?You're being silly, Daniel. Make that "way past silly."