Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.

In other words you are saying that scientist are conspiring to falsify data on a global scale?

Really?

Again, I suggest you read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and then provide me with some rational for the correlations that isn't just wishful thinking -- on based on actual objective empirical evidence.

See the graph in Message 134 and tell me why the age vs depth slopes change at the same point for both varve layer and C-14 age ...

Enjoy.

Thanks for the discussion coyote, I have a lot more to say, especially about tree ring chronology but unfortunately this forum is not the place to do it because of admin's lack of moderation, even when I do complain. You are welcome to private message me if you would like to continue the discussion.

Perhaps you would like to attempt to discuss this on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, which starts with dendrochronology and the correlations between tree ring data and ages.

l have pointed you towards this thread several times, as you really need to address the correlations issue.

Enjoy

Mindspawn has not been doing well on refuting current radiometric dating methods, and I doubt he will be participating much more in these threads.

I think that he has run out of "what ifs" to try to rationalize his beliefs, and is hesitant to participate any further because those beliefs might not be able to withstand the evidence we've been providing.

At this point we're seeing one of several typical creationist retreats: in this case the problem is blamed on unfair moderation, rather than the poor quality of his arguments.

yeah, figured I was getting in a little late here (I been busy)

... in this case the problem is blamed on unfair moderation, rather than the poor quality of his arguments.

Otherwise known as cognitive dissonance resolution by externalizing it into a conspiracy.

Enjoy

Otherwise known as cognitive dissonance resolution by externalizing it into a conspiracy.

That would be a most charitable explanation. It's also possible that mindspring consciously bailed out of a discussion that was over his head and used moderator failings to cover his tracks.

How long do you think mindspring would last in a discussion where simply saying "I believe" followed by made up "facts" would not be acceptable?

"I believe there are salt water spring tides in Lake Suigetsu"
"I believe we live in a neutron flux of > 10^9 neutrons/cm^2/sec"
"I believe scientists are lying about the varve count"

In the Flood thread and in bluegene's genetics thread, mindspring limited his role to presenting "plausible" alternative to mainstream interpretation where "plausible" was defined as anything mindspawn could post. In this thread, mindspawn correctly and fairly would have been called to present evidence for any of these "I believes".

There was nothing for him to do here but bail as each of those "I believes" was completely unsupportable by evidence.

Coyote, you are welcome to start a one on one public discussion if you would like. I feel bad that this thread was started by you in response to my request and yet I haven't given it the attention it deserved. Other than the moderation problem there are just too many posts in these public forums for me to keep up with.

There is "The Great Debate" forum, made for one on one debates, with no other participants allowed.

Enjoy

Sorry for the taking so long to respond, I've been very busy.

Saltwater intrusion into the water table is well known.

Yes, of course it's well known. No one ever denied this. No one ever said that saltwater intrusion doesn't happen. That you are issuing a rebuttal of a claim never made is yet another indication of your comprehension issues.

You claimed that varve layers would form from spring tides. I responded that the cores were taken from the center of lake Suigetsu around 3 miles from the ocean where the bottom is 20 meters above sea level. You were asked for evidence that tides could cause varve layers 3 miles from the ocean and 20 meters above sea level. You instead replied with the non sequitur, "Saltwater intrusion into the water table is well known." Well, duh.

By the way, you rebutted yourself in your own response when you quoted from Transient groundwater dynamics in a coastal aquifer: The effects of tides, the lunar cycle, and the beach profile:

mindspawn rebutting self writes: (3) offshore inflow of saline water is largely insensitive to tides and the lunar cycle.

It's a mere footnote that fiction has a greater influence on your beliefs than facts - we see this here all the time. What is truly perplexing is why you expect to convince anyone else with barely a single fact on your side.

--Percy

I responded that the cores were taken from the center of lake Suigetsu around 3 miles from the ocean where the bottom is 20 meters above sea level. You were asked for evidence that tides could cause varve layers 3 miles from the ocean and 20 meters above sea level.

Hum, I missed that. But I see it now.

Coyote, you are welcome to start a one on one public discussion if you would like. I feel bad that this thread was started by you in response to my request and yet I haven't given it the attention it deserved. Other than the moderation problem there are just too many posts in these public forums for me to keep up with.

There is no moderation problem. There is only your habit of posting imaginary "what-ifs" as if they were evidence, coupled with chasing any convenient rabbit hole you can fall into.

If you had any serious evidence you would have posted it by now.

The issue of this thread is the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, but you have wandered into fantasies about sea water intrusion into one varve series while ignoring all the evidence that points to radiocarbon dating being sufficiently accurate to demolish both the young earth and global flood at 4,350 years ago claims.

But, I'll play the game of a one-on-one thread if you like.

However, I'm not going to chase you down rabbit holes. You'll stick to the topic or you'll be talking to yourself.

mindspawn writes: If a process is likely and not merely a theoretical possibility, then pointing out the likely process is a valid rebuttal.

But that's not what you're doing. You're claiming that processes that are merely legitmate processes that actually exist are the ones actually responsible in contradiction to all evidence. Then you're ignoring, or just as often misunderstanding or misinterpreting, the evidence.

Follow the evidence where it leads. (And use the correct definition of terms, like "correlated" and "terrestrial".)

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.

The issue of this thread is the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, but you have wandered into fantasies about sea water intrusion into one varve series while ignoring all the evidence that points to radiocarbon dating being sufficiently accurate to demolish both the young earth and global flood at 4,350 years ago claims.

One single tree older than that is sufficient to invalidate that claim.

Amusingly there are three such trees known so far:

From Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

quote:

---

Message 2: http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/...le/pi/pin/longaeva.htm (5)

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. ...

---

As of today those trees would be:

• 4,845 years (in 2013 for "Methusulah" ... and counting ...).
  
• 4,893 years (in 2013 for "Prometheus" ... and counting ...).

and:

quote:

---

Message 269: http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

... The tree was cored by Edmund Schulman in the late 1950s but he never had a chance to date it before he died. Tom worked up the core only recently, and knows which tree it is. The tree is still alive, and the age given below, 5062, is the tree's age as of the growing season of 2012.

---

So Schulman's tree would be

• 5,063 years (in 2013 ... and counting ...).

AND the consilience of tree ring data, climate effect on ring thickness and 14C data of these 3 trees all show the validity of both dendrochronology and 14C age measurements for this period.

Other trees extend this data even further into the past:

quote:

---

Message 269: http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/...topics/the-ancient-trees
... The climate and the durability of their wood can preserve them long after death, with dead trees as old as 7,000 years persisting next to live ones.

---

Which means that -- as a minimum there has been no world killing flood for 7,000 years ... since the tree germinated and grew to old age and died. Tying it in to the ages measured by the above three trees would make it even older, identifying when the tree died by matching rings with the living trees via the science of dendrochronology.

This is, of course, discussed in greater detail on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

The correlation with 14C data is discussed on Message 4:

quote:

---

These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/...arbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf (9)

quote:

---

---

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:

• If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
• The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
• The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

---

Enjoy

Just because someone believes MANKIND is only ~6k years old doesn't mean that he believes the EARTH is that young. The Bible gives the account of the creation of the "Heavens and the Earth" BefORE it begins talking about the creative days. The Earth's creation could have been BILLIONS of years before God turned his attention to the Earth.

So, according to EVOLUTIONISTS, the dating techniques are perfectly good to prove EVOLUTION right.

"Beware the sound of one hand clapping" -Stephen Meyer

And furthermore, wherever did you get the idea that the FLOOD KILLED ALL VEGETATION? What do you think Noah saw when coming out of the ark, a MOONSCAPE?

And furthermore, wherever did you get the idea that the FLOOD KILLED ALL VEGETATION?

Explain how it would have not destroyed all vegetation. You can do an experiment at home: grow 2 plants (any will do) side by side. Once both have reached about maturity, submerge one of them in water and leave it there for ~30 days and leave the other out and continue to tend to it. What do you think will happen? Do non-water based (edit: aquatic) plants survive with no CO2 to breathe? Can non-water based (edit: aquatic) plants survive submerged under water for 40 days? Take great caution because this is the science section of EvC, so your faith is useless as is "magic" or "god works in weird and wacky ways".

Also, typing in capitals doesn't bolster your argument. It makes you look like a loon.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.