Age Correlations and an Old Earth

whatever, You aren't paying attention to the title of this topic.Note the correlations. Until you explain them you haven't begun to touch the topic.I think you don't understand the whole point at all. If you actually want to discuss this then you might want to ask more about what the word correlations means in this context.It would, of course, be the first time you've ever actually grappled with the meat of a topic.

You have to help them here. They don't get that the dates and count match up very well, without the adjustments. It sound circular when you don't know the numbers and sizes of the C14 level variation adjustments. This is a classic problem when the absolute and relative sizes of the numbers involved are not known.whatever, one more time correlations. You can not sensibly discuss this without understanding what that means.Do you?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-10-2004]

That is a complete non-answer. It says, in a paragraph, what you could have said in a couple of sentences.1) I have no clue how this could happen.
2) I don't understand the issue in the first place.I'm sure you don't know this but the above is obvious from your post.

whatever, dude, may i make some suggestions. Here is how I would go about looking into a case like this. I would do this if it was a bit important to me to understand the validity of what is being claimed for this lake. I would do it whether I was inclinded to disagree or agree with the conclusions.First I would not jump in making up a bunch of crazy ideas until I understood in a bit of detail just what the situation with this lake was. When you make things up without any knowledge it looks silly and is easily shown to be wrong.Let's try some questions that might be important.1) How are the layers told a part?
This one has already been answered. Have you understood it?
2)Are the layers still being laid down today? For how long has the lake been observed doing this?
3)Are there any discontinuities in the layering? Are they correlated with any known events (major typhon or something)?
4)Are there any other markers in the layers (other than C-14)? For example, can a volcanoes dust be found at about the "right" layer? Is the sudden appearance of nuclear test fallout found?
5)The varves are used to "calibrate" the C-14 dates. This sound circular. How far off is the C-14 dating when no callibration at all is applied?
6)What has been done to control the collection of the cores?You need to ask questions first not make wild speculations. So far you ideas are obviously not relavant at all to the varve dating. Once you understand the nature of the layers it is clear that storm mixing can not explain them in any way. None of what you suggest has any bearing on real life here.PS - you haven't shown that you understand correlatins yet. Could you clarify that?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-11-2004]

The processes you describe can NOT create the varves, IMHO. I believe you have been told that the varves are still being laid down one a year. What do you need to believe this? Note that Percy told you this already.

You actually think you are discussing the issue at hand????!!!Un Bee lievable!whatever, i think it is time for you to give up. You don't get it, you aren't going to get it, you are incapable of getting it.Astonishing that someone who can at least turn a computer on can be so totally out of it!!!

This is getting to be more and more pure gibberish. Perhaps you should ask questions and stop making up strings of words which aren't connected to reality.If you can't explain the correlations then, I think, you have reached the end of the line. You may simply state that you don't know and drop the subject. You can tell us that you decided long ago not to believe anything that contradicts the lies that you have been told. Just say so and move on.

Welcome here, Rick.Please be sure to review the forum guidelines and perhaps read over:
Message 1 and
Message 1This is not a "chat room". In those the msgs and responses are instantaneous. In my experience they have a heck of a time maintaining any coherent discussion.There are, of course, a lot of sites that discuss this topic. There are, I think, few that are as well run as this one. You can thank Percy, Moose and Asgara (among others) for that.You will find all sorts of "beliefs" here and lots of room to discuss whatever you want. However, this forum is rather more formal than most. You need to really mean to debate and discuss. You might need a bit of a thick skin too. Most people are very polite, especially if you are. However, many will jump on everything you say (sometimes even when they agree). The attack is, generally, not at you but at what you post. Try to remember that.Have fun. There is a lot to learn here. We are fortunate to have a number of well educated, well spoken people here. You'll recognize them as you go.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2004]

I think there is a mix up on a pretty basic point. If sound circular if you say you use the varve count to calibarate the C-14 date and that the C-14 dates corroborate the varves. (or something like that).Some points:
1)It is understood that C-14 dates, taken raw, are not perfect.2)It is also understood from dates that are know (historic things for example) that the amount of error is reasonably small. (IIRC about 5%)3)Given the above the C-14 dates taken without correction are not satifactory for many archeological purposes.4)However, for the kind of argument we are having here, that is, is the earth about 6,000 years old or greater than 50,000, the raw dates are fine.5)Without correction, as noted in the previous post, the C-14 dates go up as the number of varves is counted. They are within a few percent of the varve count. The dates from C-14 are that right, at least.6)Once you've established that the varves are yearly (both by watching them form, aligning them with historic events AND matching them to C-14 dates)) then you can use them to refine (calibrate) the C-14 dating for other purposes.The use of the varse for calibration of the C-14 dates can be, for our purposes ignored. It is not calibrating (as in setting the scale in totality) it is really just fine tuning it.I can conceive of no reasonable suggestion that has both the varve counts and the C-14 dates matching at all (talk about within even 10 or 20 %) other than they are both measuring years. And that is just taking this one site and measurements, without taking any others.As has been noted all the data must be considered. However, even ignoring all the rest I don't see being able to reject this.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-28-2004]

Good question. I'm not interested in any 'flood' date but it would be interesting to see any "markers" in the varve deposits that correspond to historic events both very recent and more ancient.I know that Vesuvius shows up in ice cores. Does it show up in the varves too? How about Mt St Helen's and Krakatoa?

Since they seem to have disappeared back a lot of posts ago could you re-refer to them please. Generally your post would be considered bad form in any case.If you can't understand your own references or the rebuttals why do you think we should bother to consider anything you are putting forward.There are occasions (cosmology for example) where I have to just point and say "What he said." However, I don't pretend to have won any argument with that. If you think that you can't understand the arguments then maybe you should go with the side that has those who spend their lives understanding the issues and are the vast majority of the 'experts".

Oh, what is your intention then?(added by edit)I see, below, that I may have misjudged. I'm sorry.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-30-2004]

Here's another one that needs abit of attention

What does this have to do with anything? My involvment with that was simply pointing out a mis reading that someone had gotten caught in.

This is another measure of the constancy of radio decay. The various different methods of measuring both radiometric and just plain counting agree with all of the others.It is the correlations that the YEC'ers have never come close to answering. If you review this thread you will see that they don't seem to ever get to understanding what the heck the word is.