Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 59 of 357 (368576)
12-08-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


contamination trumps correlations
What prodicals were done in the testing of the cores taken, were they frozen before testing to prevent contamination.
What was the water content in the cores sampled, did they test for methane gases, Co2, carbonates, percent solids. What was the grams tested for C14, N14 etc...
Biological Questions need to asked, humic colloidals how they form from anaerobic processes and how they sort off density pressure not to disclude dual porosity, etc..., bringing questions of tests that were not done in the lake suitsu study (mineral analysis of the clays, kerogen (the mineralization processes involved) of the fossil tested in not only the lake suitsu but other correlative lakes mentioned.
One can not discount methane gas, was there Co2 gassing, nothing mentioned in the lake suitsu study or the other lakes correlated to lake suitsu, etc...
Link questions contamination, sample integrity, questions that need to be answered because contamination trumps correlations.
ttp://Lake Varves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 9:52 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 61 of 357 (368597)
12-09-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
12-08-2006 9:52 PM


Re: contamination trumps correlations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 9:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 12-09-2006 7:59 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2006 8:53 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 357 (368724)
12-09-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
12-09-2006 8:53 AM


Re: contamination still doesn't trump correlations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2006 8:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2006 9:19 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2006 9:28 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 70 of 357 (368838)
12-10-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
12-09-2006 9:19 PM


That is because that area was covered by ICE 16,000 years ago - vegetation to form peat won't grow beneath an ice sheet.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2006 9:19 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2006 4:20 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 12-10-2006 5:50 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 357 (368962)
12-11-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by anglagard
12-10-2006 5:50 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
With further research, examination of such DNA may wind up being yet another example of support for evolution and an old Earth.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 12-10-2006 5:50 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 12-11-2006 10:34 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 12-11-2006 11:57 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 12-11-2006 12:54 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 78 of 357 (369150)
12-11-2006 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coragyps
12-11-2006 11:57 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Then why, pray tell, was Alley able to date the 79AD eruption of Vesuvius to within seven years by counting Greenland varves down to a volcanic ash layer? That's the sort of correlation the bozos at AiG ignore completely.
I could not find where the creationists at AIG have a problem with Mt. Vesuvius climatic correlations.
Perhaps thats why they are not addressing it directly but addressing the problem uniformitists have explaining ice varves stretching into the glacier era, having such great fluctuations in the oxygen isotope ratio in the glacial era. Perhaps the earth is really a young earth, etc...
I agree this threads topic is not about the truth but only that the uniformitists correlations agree. The truth (ice varves ages) appears more explained by the AIG people and the stretched truth correlations more explained by the uniformitists.
Percy explained this thread is not about the accuracy of the varves, but that they correlate. I'm not sure the AIG people would have a beef other than the truth has been stretched, etc...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. The oxygen isotope ratio down the GRIP ice core, central Greenland (from Wolff et al.).5 Within the uniformitarian interpretation, Holocene represents the last 10,000 years or so, YD is the Younger Dryas cold period, A/B is the Allerod/Bolling warm period, 5a-d is the early part of the last ice age, and ”Eem’ represents the previous interglacial. In the creationist interpretation, the Holocene would represent the post-Ice-Age climate during the past 4,000 years (approximately 1,500 m of ice), while the rapid post-Flood Ice Age would include the whole core below 1,500 m depth. Notice the high amplitude sharp oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio in the glacial part of the core.
Conclusions
The wild oscillations in the oxygen isotope ratio during the Ice Age is interpreted by uniformitarian scientists as catastrophic changes in temperature in the North Atlantic region. These are used to justify speculation on rapid climate change in the present climate due to increased greenhouse gasses. It is the uniformitarian stretched-out time scale that is the main cause of the problem. Within a creationist model,1 the large fluctuations can be explained by events during the Ice Age. With much thicker annual layers in the Ice Age portion of the core, the oscillations could simply be annual layers caused by seasonal changes in temperature or more prolonged changes in temperature caused by variable volcanic dust loading in the stratosphere.
Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 12-11-2006 11:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-11-2006 8:59 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 12-11-2006 11:00 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 81 by iceage, posted 12-12-2006 12:19 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 83 of 357 (369810)
12-14-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anglagard
12-11-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
I doubt the AIG people have much of a beef with fundemental evidence as related to dust that happened after the ice era layers.
The scientific evidence is that nothing of the plant variety (peat) is dating older than 16,500 years in the northern most lattitudes yet where plants were not frozen in warmer parts of the earth peat dates on the edges of the C14 dating method.
------------------------------------------------------
The most fundamental evidence is related to dust, just as
Ellenberger and Mewhinney suggest, but not in terms of their
uniformitarian outlook and interpretation. Nothing in the top
layers of the icecaps has anything to do with Velikovsky's
hypothesis. Whatever was presented from these layers is only
related to the uniformitarian, gradualistic interpretation of
ice formation. Pointing to anything found after Velikovsky's
catastrophic events, as Ellenberger and Mewhinney do, has and
never had anything whatsoever to do with his scenario.
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/floods/ice.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 12-11-2006 11:00 PM anglagard has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 84 of 357 (369812)
12-14-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by iceage
12-12-2006 12:19 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Different conclusions sure, however science is concerned with the right conclusions.
I agree like Dr. Humphreys finding that the helium diffusion in granite were formed approximately 6,000 years ago.
The radioactive ages has nothing to do with the age of the earth, no evidence for fusion of new elements within the earth, everything is decaying thus elements that make up the earth was fused pre-earth.
The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites.
Scientifically the helium diffusing in the granites that lie beneath the ice is in essence a clock that correlates to a young earth.
-----------------------------------------
The granites
He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium along with Lead are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. The Helium should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon.
RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference | The Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by iceage, posted 12-12-2006 12:19 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 10:02 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 10:05 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 87 of 357 (369836)
12-14-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
12-14-2006 10:05 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).
Just responding to your threads opening statment of belief that the evidence for an old earth is easier to comprehend.
The evidence is easier to comprehend for a young earth, your correlations are not all that easy to comprehend, etc...
Your interpretation of the correlations does support an old earth (your simply banning any evidence to the contrary, etc...) the evidence from a YEC point of view scientifically supports a young earth.
The evidence supports a young earth your title your inflaminatory paragraph suggest that age correlation support an old earth.
I request you drop this paragraph as its an inflaminatory statement to suggest any creationists believes the earth is flat or the sun the center of the universe, as it has nothing to do with your topic,etc...
Thank-you, etc...
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 10:57 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 7:54 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 90 of 357 (369892)
12-15-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
12-15-2006 7:54 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Dr. Roger C. Wiens never mentioned that the elements in the natural within the earth never undergo fusion. If the elements only undergo radioactive decay then they were all created pre-earth and has nothing to do with Humphreys helium diffusion out of granite.
The helium diffusion out of granite is like sand flowing through an hour glass and has nothing to do with radioactive decay.
This clock is diffusing helium right under all your correlations as a testimony that the granites were formed 6,000- 12,000 thousands years ago not billions of years ago. The radioactive elements decaying alongside in the lead is only evidence that that the elements that make up the earth were formed pre-earth.
Radioactive decay has nothing to do with the age the earth was created, never has. Its basis is only the false assumptions of uniformitarians to imply that the earth is old.
Uniformitarians twist sciences to support their beliefs, however uniformitarians have no evidence that fusion has ever occurred within the earth only that the elements decay. This only supports the elements were formed (fuzed) pre-earth, nothing more, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 7:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2006 12:05 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 93 by Woodsy, posted 12-15-2006 1:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 1:22 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 96 of 357 (369939)
12-15-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PurpleYouko
12-15-2006 1:22 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Dr. Roger C. Wiens never mentioned that the elements in the natural within the earth never undergo fusion.
What does fusion have to do with this?
Fusion is when particles are slammed together so hard that their nuclei become one with each other, noramally resulting in a short lived unstable isotope. How does this relate in any way to Helium difusion?
RAzd link from Roger Wiens was in respect to Humphreys helium diffusion. I agree with you Roger Wiens belief in radioactive dating has nothing to do with helium diffusion. The elements decaying were formed when the particles likely slammed together increasing their radioactive ages pre-earth (before the earth was), etc...
Oh and just out of interest, it isn't even possible to make Helium from Fusion without a particle accelerator to smash protons and neutrons together at near light speed.
I agree, the bigger issue appears for the uniformitarianists to run various pressure related experiments in respect to zircon diffusion of helium to prove it decreases helium diffusion. Why has not the uniformitarians run this test? will helium diffusion be proved to be increased or will Humphreys be vindicated that it will prove that pressure has no relationship of diffusion of helium from the granites.
Personally too me it would appear that increases in pressure would increase the diffusion rate not the other way around. I've not found anything showing the uniformitarians have proven anything, etc...
Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay and a little bit of fission. (I think we covered spontaneous fision and subsequent neutron reactions pretty well before) Fusion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I agree Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay since the elements formed. We really are clueless to the original parent elements when the earth was formed but the helium trapped when the granites formed is one of the methods creationists use to date not the age of the elements but the age of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 1:22 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 4:00 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 357 (370025)
12-15-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PurpleYouko
12-15-2006 4:00 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Except that Helium isn't trapped when the granite forms. It is free to move in and out since there will not be any pressure differential between "in" and "out" of any given crystal.
Its believed the granites formed quickly due to the radiohalos images within the granites. If granite formed more slowly and the magma cooled slowly there would be no radiohalos.
I agree with you and Humphreys (Chemistry 101 gas laws) that the helium is not trapped when the granites formed. If they were trapped they would not be diffusing to indicate the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. The uniformitarians believe that they are trapped by pressure is simply as we agree an untruth, etc...
Humphreys premise is that helium is diffusing out at certain rate (minus alpha ejections) taking into account helium contributions from (lead forming) supports his calculations of a young earth. The helium should of all nearly diffused out if the earth was an old earth.
--------------------------------------------------
A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock; since, in a liquid or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen.
Page not found – Evolution-Facts
Since we know (from laboratory experiments) that zircon crystals chemically reject the presence of Pb and actively accept Uranium while they are crystalizing, that means that at the time of formation of the crystal there was zero lead in it so any lead now in it must have gotten there later.
I'll agree the helium diffusion not based on pressure and however lead melts at relativly low temps. With higher pressures and adequate temps within the earth couldn't lead of contaminated the Zircons after they had formed?
-------------------------------------------------
I don't see the Zircons being totally destroyed from from alpha decay from within, if alpha decay had been happening for billions of years, wouldn't the zircon particle be near destroyed from within.
-------------------------------------------------
Minerals containing uranium and thorium are crystalline initially, but may eventually lose a long-range ordered arrangement of atoms in their structure because of progressive damage from radioactive decay and alpha-particle emission. In effect, these minerals are destroying themselves from within! Zircon (ZrSiO4),
University of Manitoba - University of Manitoba - Contact Information
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : If they were trapped they would not be diffusing indicate the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. The uniformitarians believe that they are trapped by pressure is simply as we agree an untruth, etc...
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 4:00 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2006 8:05 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 9:22 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 12-15-2006 9:27 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 104 of 357 (370112)
12-16-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
12-15-2006 9:22 PM


Re: NOW Back to the FUTURE thread: CORRELATIONS!
So we have a new source of Helium atoms AND a general diffusion of Helium through a rock that normally contains a lot of radioactive material.
You forget the zircon crystal is more dense than the more porous granites they are found within. Even at that it takes thousands of years to diffuse out of the zircons into the granites.
Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.
It appears the Radiohalo's correlate to the biblical flood and the helium diffusion rate to the age of the earth.
One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research
I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) nothing of substance anyway.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by iceage, posted 12-16-2006 12:18 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2006 3:58 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 12-16-2006 3:52 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 107 of 357 (370207)
12-16-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
12-16-2006 3:58 AM


Denial of evidence is NOT faith, it is delusion.
Why pray tell if the earth is billions of years ago does tree rings only correlate back 10,000 years(in agreement with a young earth).
The frozen peat too correlates that vegetation dating approximately 12,000 years with scientist that have no evidence any exists in the northern latitudes older than 16,500 years.
Without this food source the animals that uniformitarian evolutionists say have been around for millions of years simply could not of survived.
Because if they didn't conclude that they (1) would be out of a job, and (2) couldn't make a living off gullible people that don't care about reality if someone pretends to be an authority and feeds them the pap they want to suck down.
No actually its the paleontologists in the universities that are trapped if they speak out they risk losing tenure. Its sad you can not see this simple truth. However (the love of money is a root of evil).
Why do we get the correlations? Time after time after time after time? In system after system after system after system?
Because the truth has been stretched time after time after time so the stretching fits system after system.
Trees only correlate to approximately 12,000 years in the northern hemisphere no vegetation is believed to be older than 16,500 years in the northern hemispheer.
Tree rings data supports life is no older than 10,000 years and the truth contained within varve dating & ice varves has been stretched by the powers that threaten tenure to the paleontologist.
The earths age based off the tree rings is simply evidence of a young earth. Without trees plants how pray tell did the animals forage. You need millions of years for them to evolve and well their is simply no evidence that tree rings support evolutionists uniformitarian beliefs.
Do you agree that tree rings support an earth of at least 10,000 years?
Minimum age of the earth = 10,000 years based on this data.
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) nothing of substance anyway.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2006 3:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2006 3:29 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2006 11:22 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2006 6:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5581 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 111 of 357 (370241)
12-16-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by anglagard
12-16-2006 3:52 PM


Re: Tale of Two Charts
How come your AIG chart of the GRIP ice core does not look at all like the one published in Nature and correlated to oxygen isotope ratios and abundances among foraminifera in the North Atlantic?
Michael J. Oard based his reference to Keigwins ice-core chronology chart that was discussed by Dansgaard. It was not in Nature 365 sept 9 1993,
---------------------------------------
The second point is stage 5d in deep sea cores. Keigwin et al. state:
”The ice-core chronology was discussed by Dansgaard et al. and is pinned to the deep-sea chronology at the 110-kyr level [stage 5d], denoted by the solid vertical line [in their Figure 2].’2
Keigwin, L.D., Curry, W.B., Lehman, S.J. and Johnsen, S., The role of the deep ocean in North Atlantic climate change between 70 and 130 kyr ago, Nature 371:323-326, p. 324, 1994.
----------------------------------------
What is more interesting is the chart (figure 3). After 1500 meters the meters of water drops dramatically till it reads near 0 thru 3000 meters. Yet were to believe that each fluctuation in Oxygen is an annual layer no matter the thinness of the layers, etc...
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 12-16-2006 3:52 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by anglagard, posted 12-17-2006 1:35 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 117 by anglagard, posted 12-17-2006 1:48 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024