Seems like an excuse to me to avoid having to deal with the information here. This is predictable: most creationists seem to avoid this thread because the information is too dangerous to their beliefs.
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.
Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this
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.
Where did you look? We can see the patterns left behind from such a process in our own DNA
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.
And due to us living in the real world, it is easy to find lots and lots and lots of them, not just one. . No, you will get an automatic discordance with carbon dating. How could you even write such nonsense?
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.....
OK, now I'm just going to laugh at you.
"Current atmospheric pressures"? Oh my word.
Did it not occur to you that you should try to find out what you're talking about before you started talking about it?
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.
The conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about is based on your posts, which reveal that you don't know what you're talking about.
You're a typical creationist: you are completely ignorant of the facts that need explaining, of the explanations that have been provided for them, and of the reasoning that underlies the explanations.
Now, the last two I could forgive. But the first I find unforgivable. You hope, you believe, you assert, that creationist magical thinking can account for the observable facts, when you do not know what the observable facts are and have clearly never taken the slightest interest in them.
You're like a policeman who's decided to fit up some guy for a crime, with no interest in actually solving it.
"This murder was obviously committed by John Smith!"
"Uh, Sarge, it's a mugging. The victim is still alive."
"Don't bother me with details, his fingerprints are clearly all over this gun."
"Sarge ... that's a knife."
More hogwash, this is a science forum. I appreciate a well written rebuttal.
Varves are not formed by diatom shells, nor are they formed in tidal water. They are formed in still fresh water lakes by continuous deposition of white stuff and spring deposition of black stuff (or maybe the other way arround, I can't be bothered to look it up). Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt
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.
First, you did not propose an increase in carbon pressure. You proposed a relative increase in the percentage of carbon due to a depletion of some other component, presumably oxygen. But you have not proposed an effect that would cause the partial pressure of carbon dioxide to change at all. Accordingly, this would not produce the effect you are looking for.
Secondly, increasing the amount of C-14 produces dates that would appear more recent rather than deeper in the past. Dates we think to be 10,000 years in the past due to their small amounts of detected C14 would actually be much older. How is this helpful to your argument?
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.
And I would prefer that you don't respond so that this thread can stay focussed on the issues of correlations.
I will be marking ALL off-topic posts with jeers to emphasize this point.
Please start another topic if you want to pursue this issue.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
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.
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.
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.