Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I can understand your frustration with the lack of discussion in your dating thread, and I am ready to participate now. If you can just be patient with me, I will deal with some of the issues one by one, and then get to your core issue of the observed correlation between the various dating methods you have presented.Starting with varves, its the study of modern varve creation that reveals to us how they were created historically, and these layers that look like "annual" often are not annual layers (they look like varves but are not).Basin Morphology, Sedimentology, and History of a Small Proglacial Lake, Matanuska Glacier, Alaska
Sean Bryan, Senior Integrative Exercise, March 10, 2004:
There are several limnological criteria, such as the existence of
suspended matter in the water column and water stratification for part of the year, that must be present in order for rhythmic laminations to be true varves (Sturm, 1979). Rhythmic light and dark laminations are not necessarily varves (Lambert and Hsu, 1979;Syverson, 1998) and there may be more than one light-dark couplet in an annual deposit (Shaw et al., 1978; Pickrill and Irwin, 1983; Desloges, 1994).Due to there being many many places in which varve-like patterns are formed, just according to the sheer number, its easy to find one "varve pattern" that has a vaguely correlating pattern to other dating methods. If they were rarer, then the "correlation" would have more significance. Its pretty obvious that any beach washes up shells according to moon cycle, spring tide every 28 days is where the most shells are left stranded to be covered by soft windblown beach sand for the next 27 days. If you choose spring tide "varves" (true varves are annual, not monthly) you will be out by a factor of 12, and you will achieve an automatic close match with carbon dating, which can also be out by a factor of 12.Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, and the dates are established according to current carbon atmospheric content. It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. Most civilizations report an impact event around 3500bp (Kohl's revised dating) which would have also destroyed vegetation thus kept the carbon ratio high. Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures rather than the fluctuating pressures of the past.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm just interested.I have been looking around the internet for over a year, hoping for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Only under evolutionary assumptions can you see these patterns. That is circular reasoning.ie it is often assumed that the differences between the human and for example the ape genome are evolved. Under that assumption some genes are seen as duplicates that have added a new function. The alternative, that the human was designed with two similar genes in that position as opposed to the ape designed with one in that position is never considered due to the fact that evolution is assumed to be the superior theory than creation.

You are very good with your dramatic language. Let's stick to facts. If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord. It is a common observed phenomenon that diatom shells are washed up with spring tides, they normally form 12 layers a year, not one. Thus the timeframes in that graph should be divided by 12, giving us an age of just over 4000 years, fitting in with flood timeframes. The fact that carbon dating no longer agrees highlights that in fact carbon dating is also inaccurate over those timeframes, proof of this inaccuracy to follow..... Again, you are using mocking wording without backing up your statements:
http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2004-02/1075764676.Bt.r.html
Plants will increase photosynthesis under increased pressures, absorbing more carbon 14 in the process, and absorb less under low pressures. Thus it is based on assumed consistency of air pressures. Carbon 14 dating is also based on assumed consistency in atmospheric carbon production.

More hogwash, this is a science forum. I appreciate a well written rebuttal.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm just responding to comments posted, I never intitiated off-topic discussions, only responded.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The example given was specifically about varves formed by annual layers of diatom shells, if you have been following the discussion. It was this particular example which correlated with carbon dating. You seem more interested in side topics and insults that just sticking to science or even following the discussion. Varves do form in brackish estuaries, estuaries are sensitive to tidal fluctuations, so your comments are incorrect. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I was still getting to your other post, because it does contain some good points. You are right that my logic in that case is counter-intuitive. I do admit when I get things incorrect and appreciate a good logical answer.

Could you show me your workings please? Any links showing how academics reach their conclusions?

I would love to continue this discussion with you, I see you have already made some good points and I really enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately I have too much self esteem to put myself through the rudeness of your peers on this site. This site should be better moderated to encourage good discussion.ps lake Suigetsu is brackish, connected to a salt water lake. Tides affect its salinity, due obtaining its salinity through the adjacent tide effected Lake Kugushi, and salinity has a direct bearing on the population of diatoms (it kills them). Logically there would be a spring tide/diacom population relationship through the brackishness of the lake coming from the high tides of the salt water Lake Kugushi.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Good idea, let's do it..

Yes it was my mistake, thanks for picking up the ambiguity Panda. I was busy replying to RAZD's post 250 concerning the evolution debate, when I realised I cannot continue in THIS thread about radioactive dating. Hence the ambiguity, but anyway, both discussions are of interest to me, we can continue discussing novel genes there, and at a later date tackle radioactive dating again in another one on one debate if we both still keen then.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD, I don't have reply privileges in that forum. I actually wanted to discuss dating, but am happy to discuss evolution.I am only interested in discussing novel genes, your topic seems to be discussing whether the precise wording of my sentence reveals a misunderstanding of evolution? Hey it probably does on a semantic grammar level, you can win that debate ;-)In the meantime I wonder if nature can duplicate a gene naturally, a coding gene that then introduces a new function that adds fitness to the organism? I didn't mean to infer that I have been doing in depth studies for a year, but in a few passing discussions with evolutionists over the last year I have not yet seen evidence of this particular process. If you could show evidence for this , even a private message, I would appreciate it.