Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And I addressed the data in the OP.Addressed it with a
Not at all, I do not imagine everything, only that Gos is somehow real, and true, and right. The same state foundational belief is not something I made up, it is the real basis for all science, trying to impose itself on the past.
Maybe lake Gosciaz in Poland. I have attached three graphs, one showing C14 correlations between tree rings, varves from Lake Meerfelder Maar in Germany, Lake Holzmaar in Germany, Lake Gosciaz in Poland, Lake Suigetsu and Tree Rings beteen 8,000 and 15,000 years ago. The second shows data from about 1,000 to 14,000 years ago for tree rings and the two German Lakes. The third figure shows correlation between varves from the German Lakes, C14 data from ocean cores in the Cariaco Basin and U-Th dating of coral couplets.One thing I will say for you, Dad, and that is you have managed to elicit a steady stream of tremendously interesting science information from knowledgeable people like Frumious Bandersnatch and others. Makes for very educational reading.
Now - is 'Gos' the Google operating system or the Georgia Ornithological Society? Enquiring minds, you know... ;-)
You can take a same state past based prediction, on whatever area you like, take it, and stick it on a plane to Tobolsk, and have it read there to try to corroborate another same past based idea, over in Ankara. Doesn't help your case at all. The problem is they are all same state based and you can't give us a same state! Let's be real clear here. However similar, tooth fairy based predictions of a tooth fairy based past might be, there is a reason for that! The same reason your so called correlations agree, to within, what, at times, many many millions of years!! It has become obvious you can't stand on your own two feet, on any issue, and try to tie a cord of other same state past threads, to help you out. That is childish, and dishonest. That will not help you wave it all away! Take for example trees growing fast in a different state. Nothing you can say about it. On every front, and in every item brought up, you fail. Carbon amounts in a different past cannot be so called correlated to a present based system, UNLESS you give us that same state past. All you do is say that it had to work like it now does, but can't produce any science, or reason for that religion....The correlations in the data from totally different sources are not compatable with your different past myth.
Easy, because the planet happened to exist before that as well, and, for a bit after the flood, apparently was in a different universe state as well. That covers it. How can you wave that away unless you give us a same state past?? It is time to bulldoze all the obfuscation's, and foundation less planks obscuring the picture here. That is all you do, try to point to the covering, as one that covereth. That, and blow so called correlation dust, and smoke, to avoid looking at your horrid little two bit phony foundation.You have in no way explained how they could come about on a planet that had experienced a global flood just 4,500 years ago. Not even close.
The correlations are there. You have no way of explaining them with your fantasy. Again you show that all you can do is blather, bluster andYou can take a same state past based prediction, on whatever area you like, take it, and stick it on a plane to Tobolsk, and have it read there to try to corroborate another same past based idea, over in Ankara. Doesn't help your case at all. The problem is they are all same state based and you can't give us a same state! Let's be real clear here. However similar, tooth fairy based predictions of a tooth fairy based past might be, there is a reason for that! The same reason your so called correlations agree, to within, what, at times, many many millions of years!!
I can say that the rings in the trees you claim were growing fast have the same levels of C14 as the varves you say were formed fast and yet many times more varves than rings must of formed during your fantasy period of post-flood magic physics. They correlate before 4,500 years ago and after. The correlation curves are smooth with absolutely no evidence of a transistion to a "different past" 4,500 years ago. I can say that varves dated by C14, tree rings dated by C14 and coral couplets dated by U-Th dataing all fall on the same correlation curves with no indication of different past. And I can say that tree rings, lake varves, coral couplets and ice cores all give consistent dates for events in paleoclimatology back more than 10,000 years.It has become obvious you can't stand on your own two feet, on any issue, and try to tie a cord of other same state past threads, to help you out. That is childish, and dishonest. That will not help you wave it all away! Take for example trees growing fast in a different state. Nothing you can say about it.
You can't explain how they would correlate in a your different past, with a global flood 4,500 years ago and according to you no radioactive decay until sometime after than flood. Then again I am not even sure you know what correlation means after you discussion on the subject with Thaum.On every front, and in every item brought up, you fail. Carbon amounts in a different past cannot be so called correlated to a present based system, UNLESS you give us that same state past.
I have presented the data. You can't explain it. All you can do isAll you do is say that it had to work like it now does, but can't produce any science, or reason for that religion.
This bluster and blather in no way explains the correlations in the data. You have lost. Get over it.Easy, because the planet happened to exist before that as well, and, for a bit after the flood, apparently was in a different universe state as well. That covers it. How can you wave that away unless you give us a same state past?? It is time to bulldoze all the obfuscation's, and foundation less planks obscuring the picture here. That is all you do, try to point to the covering, as one that covereth. That, and blow so called correlation dust, and smoke, to avoid looking at your horrid little two bit phony foundation.
The so called correlations can't even be shown to be from the same time period, can they?? If the varves were pre flood, and trees mostly post flood, how would you know what to correlate with what???The correlations are there.
If the carbon level in trees, happens to be similar to what you expect in rock, or varves, yet the rock was from long long before, how would that help your case?? What dates the varves at 40,000 years old?? I mean, was there any uplift in the area, or basement movements, in the continental separation, etc?? If 40,000 varves were laid down pre flood, and trees grew post flood, how is there any correlation possible, precisely??I can say that the rings in the trees you claim were growing fast have the same levels of C14 as the varves you say were formed fast and yet many times more varves than rings must of formed during your fantasy period of post-flood magic physics.
What are you saying, exactly, here? That the varves, simply because of layers make them so old? What if the layers came from before the flood? (most) -And the trees were (mostly) post flood?They correlate before 4,500 years ago and after. The correlation curves are smooth with absolutely no evidence of a transistion to a "different past" 4,500 years ago.
"Correlation curves"??!!! That means what, same past state speculation curves, also heavy with assumptions, like that the varves are only as old as the layers indicate? That isn't dating. That is religion. The post split curves are not in sync with the pre split curves, yet all your curves are correlated to the present state! Your religious viewing of the lake varves here, is therefore meaningless. For example, if the layers were laid down, say, in the 6 hundreth year after creation, and took, say, 1400 years to lay down, that would leave them pre flood. If the trees were post flood, you imaginary past correlations are invalid.I can say that varves dated by C14, tree rings dated by C14 and coral couplets dated by U-Th dataing all fall on the same correlation curves with no indication of different past.
Imaginary so called dates, only as valid as the state of this universe we live in today, as having existed as is in the deep past. That you don't know. So all your correlations are 'in house'. And I don't mean the house of the Lord.And I can say that tree rings, lake varves, coral couplets and ice cores all give consistent dates for events in paleoclimatology back more than 10,000 years.
Yes, I can. The decay is a present feature, but the materials represent more than that, as they were here, the isotopes, in another capacity than the decay business. Therefore no dates are possible looking at parent daughter materials. The tree rings and layers correlate just fine, trees could grow fast, so more rings were produced. Things like corals, also affected by light similarly would have been quite different. No wonder your dates are sometimes millions of years apart even within your fantasy construct past.You can't explain how they would correlate in a your different past, with a global flood 4,500 years ago and according to you no radioactive decay until sometime after than flood.
Only in your head, where the religious symbols of a same state past all line up, like ducks in a PO row.You have lost. Get over it.
Yes they can and that time period includes the recent past.The so called correlations can't even be shown to be from the same time period, can they??
What rock are you talking about? We are talking about varves in lake sediments that are forming today just as they have for many thousands of years. No rocks are involved.If the varves were pre flood, and trees mostly post flood, how would you know what to correlate with what??? If the carbon level in trees, happens to be similar to what you expect in rock, or varves, yet the rock was from long long before, how would that help your case??
The continental separation was many millions of years before these varves formed. These varves are very recent in geologic time and in fact are still forming in some of the lakes today. I think you have them confused with the lithified varves in the rocks of the Green River formation.What dates the varves at 40,000 years old?? I mean, was there any uplift in the area, or basement movements, in the continental separation, etc??
So do you think the varves in Lake Suigestsu that show the effects the 1662 AD Kanbun earthquake were laid down preflood? These annual varves sequences go from the very recent past to times thousand of years before you claim the flood occured or even before the earth was created and they exist in many lakes around the world.If 40,000 varves were laid down pre flood,
What I saying is that the correlations in 14C levels are there and you can't explain them.and trees grew post flood, how is there any correlation possible, precisely?? What are you saying, exactly, here?
These varves are in soft sediments. If there had been a global flood it should have washed them right out of the various lakes they are found in.That the varves, simply because of layers make them so old? What if the layers came from before the flood? (most)
There was no global flood. The tree rings correlate with the lake varves because each was laid down or formed annually.-And the trees were (mostly) post flood?
You don't even know what correlation means do you? The curves show the correlation. They test the assumptions and show that they are valid and you can't explain them with a "different past""Correlation curves"??!!! That means what, same past state speculation curves, also heavy with assumptions, like that the varves are only as old as the layers indicate? That isn't dating.
So you still can't tell science from religion.That is religion.
No the data correlate smoothly back thousands of years because there was no split or global flood.The post split curves are not in sync with the pre split curves, yet all your curves are correlated to the present state!
And the flood didn't wash these soft sediments out of the lakes?Your religious viewing of the lake varves here, is therefore meaningless. For example, if the layers were laid down, say, in the 6 hundreth year after creation, and took, say, 1400 years to lay down, that would leave them pre flood.
Why would post flood trees and preflood varves have levels of C14 indicating the formed at the same time? That makes no sense at all.If the trees were post flood,
There is nothing imaginary about the dates and your handwaving can't explain the correlations.you imaginary past correlations are invalid. Imaginary so called dates, only as valid as the state of this universe we live in today, as having existed as is in the deep past.
What buisness and why do the correlate as if they formed annually just as they are doing today? This is just anotherThat you don't know. So all your correlations are 'in house'. And I don't mean the house of the Lord. Yes, I can. The decay is a present feature, but the materials represent more than that, as they were here, the isotopes, in another capacity than the decay business.
So why do they correlate and appear to be annual. You have not explained why the correlations exist. In your myth the tree rings and varves must have formed at very different rates and now you are claiming even at different times and yet a smooth correlation curve exists going back from the present where both are produced annually to times long before you fantasy split and global flood are claimed to have occured. You have not explained the data at all with your hand waving.Therefore no dates are possible looking at parent daughter materials. The tree rings and layers correlate just fine, trees could grow fast, so more rings were produced. Things like corals, also affected by light similarly would have been quite different. No wonder your dates are sometimes millions of years apart even within your fantasy construct past. Only in your head, where the religious symbols of a same state past all line up, like ducks in a PO row.
I don't think so. If you mean Egypt, they even got that wrong, mostly, for the early bit. It is limited, strictly, to the recent, all right.Yes they can and that time period includes the recent past.
So varves are not solid? "Varved Sediments In inland lakes a condition can arise in which the annual sediments washed into the lake leave behind a clear record of the passage of time, much like counting tree rings. In the spring heavy rains bring an increased sediment load of fine silt and clay particles. These settle out in the drier summer months. Relatively less sediment is brought in during the rest of the year. The result is couplets of thin laminae that alternate in color and com-position. Individual laminae may be less than a millimeter thick. If these sediments lithify (harden) undisturbed in this state, what results is varved shale or sandstone with color bands that record the annual passage of time. Varving (a Swedish word) refers to thin alternating layers. This has been verified to be an annual process by microscopic examination of the pollen contents of the laminae. The dark band is rich in organics and spring pollens while the lighter band is relatively free of spring pollens." http://lordibelieve.org/time/age1.PDFWhat rock are you talking about? We are talking about varves in lake sediments that are forming today just as they have for many thousands of years. No rocks are involved.
Nice claim. You probably can't support it, with anything but myth.The continental separation was many millions of years before these varves formed.
Trees are still growing as well, the problem is not the same way, in that the light, and life processes, universe, etc can't be shown to be the same. Prove that the varves are recent? What, certain fossils are found there???These varves are very recent in geologic time and in fact are still forming in some of the lakes today.
OK, so what, these ones are soft?I think you have them confused with the lithified varves in the rocks of the Green River formation.
No. But if there were varved formations form pre flood, and later kept getting more layers, as they were now laid down, yearly, how would we know? Another thing I wonder, is if the Lake S may be post flood, but in the 100 and some odd years still former state universe!? Your figure of 40,000 doesn't seem that high. 365 days in a year, times say, 107 years, is about 39,055! Coincidence? If you want to dredge up more than your number, we can look at a few a day!So do you think the varves in Lake Suigestsu that show the effects the 1662 AD Kanbun earthquake were laid down preflood? These annual varves sequences go from the very recent past to times thousand of years before you claim the flood occured or even before the earth was created and they exist in many lakes around the world.
Different carbon levels, and carbon even involved in the life processes mean that a present based starting point, working backward is useless! You FIRST need that elusive same state past.What I saying is that the correlations in 14C levels are there and you can't explain them.
UNLESS it was after the flood, as I wondered about, or, was an area somehow protected somewhat, before the massive continental moves.These varves are in soft sediments. If there had been a global flood it should have washed them right out of the various lakes they are found in.
Yes, I can. Keep the curves in reality, not in imagination. If we look at what data, precisely the curves are based on, in any one instance, we see that the curves are woven with dreams.You don't even know what correlation means do you? The curves show the correlation. They test the assumptions and show that they are valid and you can't explain them with a "different past"
Yes, knowledge involves some knowing. Testing involves some testing. Observing involves an observer. Need more??So you still can't tell science from religion.
You really are hung up on weaving together same state based stories, to try to give them credence. No. A cord is only as good as the threads it is made of, and yours are just unable to stand. Strand by strand, they cannot stand, understand, O little man?No the data correlate smoothly back thousands of years because there was no split or global flood.
I would be interested to find that out. How soft are they, how far down? Would flooding the area now wipe them all out, if so, why??And the flood didn't wash these soft sediments out of the lakes?
Why would post flood trees and preflood varves have levels of C14 indicating the formed at the same time? That makes no sense at all.
The business of having atoms do what they now do, that includes decay. How the atoms spin, and dance now, is not the dance of the past, unless you give us that same state past. You can't What are you missing there??What buisness and why do the correlate as if they formed annually just as they are doing today?
They are anual. But we need a present state of affairs to make them annual also in the far past. That, is the issue, not how they are laid down now.So why do they correlate and appear to be annual.
The correlations are just same past dating. How would that not have some sort of pattern, looking at matrials, and isotopes, and carbon. etc? The important thing first, to determine, is when the formation was laid down. Having clear details about the area, surroundings, basement, state of universe at the time, etc. Looking at what the carbon dating is based on, that you think is collaboration, what do we really have in the real world? What is it in the varves we actually see, that supposedly dates it? Don't try to kick sand, and obfuscate matters. What curve is it, in this lake itself you think you can show?You have not explained why the correlations exist.
What is the curve based on, exactly, that is the question. Of the varves, in particular. Since this is the thread about that. Let's see the idea stand on it's own two feet. . ' " Here is the line of logic which shows that C14 works. 1. We see the Lake bloom with algae every year, today. 2. we see the algae die and make a white layer on the lake bottom. 3. We have no reason to think that the white layers are formed in any other way. 4. we see one white layer per year. With this, we can then count the white layers to get what year the white layer was deposited. There are 100,000 of them in the lake (which presents its own problem for YEC apart from carbon 14) In the layers are found some leaves and twigs which can be dated and then the dates compared with the layer count.. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm Seems like the whole thing depends on assumptions of carbon in far past twigs and leaves? Think that can cover your nakedness here??In your myth the tree rings and varves must have formed at very different rates and now you are claiming even at different times and yet a smooth correlation curve exists going back from the present where both are produced annually to times long before you fantasy split and global flood are claimed to have occured. You have not explained the data at all with your hand waving.
The Egyptian and other early civilization dates are not exact but not nearly "wrong" enough for your infant earth myth. This is an unsupported assertion you make everytime the subject comes up but a seperate falsification of your myth that is off topic here. The C14 dates obtained from tree ring and varve calibrations do agree with known historical dates as far back as known historical dates go. I previously uploaded a figure showing the correlation of tree ring dates and dates from lake varves from two lakes in Germany going from the present back to 11,000 years ago for the rings and 14,000 years ago for the lakes.I don't think so. If you mean Egypt, they even got that wrong, mostly, for the early bit. It is limited, strictly, to the recent, all right.
So varves are not solid? "Varved Sediments In inland lakes a condition can arise in which the annual sediments washed into the lake leave behind a clear record of the passage of time, much like counting tree rings. In the spring heavy rains bring an increased sediment load of fine silt and clay particles. These settle out in the drier summer months. Relatively less sediment is brought in during the rest of the year. The result is couplets of thin laminae that alternate in color and com-position. Individual laminae may be less than a millimeter thick.
Note the word if. These varves only date back 100,000 years at the most (Though there are lamina in Lake Baikal that date back much futher). That is not enough time for lithification to have occured. I think you are still confused by our previous discussion of the millions of varves in the Eocene Green River formation. Those varves formed about 40 million years ago and have had time to lithify. The millions of Green River varves are a different falsification of your myth from the one we are discussing here.If these sediments lithify (harden) undisturbed in this state, what results is varved shale or sandstone with color bands that record the annual passage of time. Varving (a Swedish word) refers to thin alternating layers. This has been verified to be an annual process by microscopic examination of the pollen contents of the laminae. The dark band is rich in organics and spring pollens while the lighter band is relatively free of spring pollens." http://lordibelieve.org/time/age1.PDF
FB:The continental separation was many millions of years before these varves formed.
No it is supported by science. We have also discussed that before. Myth is things like talking serpents and women turning into pillars of salt.Dad:Nice claim. You probably can't support it, with anything but myth.
More handwaving.Trees are still growing as well, the problem is not the same way, in that the light, and life processes, universe, etc can't be shown to be the same.
How about the fact that they form continuous sequences with those laid down annually today with no break from the present to back many thousands of years. How about the fact that c14 amounts agree with tree rings going back from the present to both the historical and prehistorical past?Prove that the varves are recent?
All the varves in modern lakes are soft. The fossils are the same as modern organisms in the lakes. The diatoms in the picture I have a pictures from a core 7.5-8 meters deep showing a detail of diatoms that are the same as modern diatoms that were deposited in the lake today. I am past my upload limit or I would upload it. In this particular portion of the core they were deposited only about 7,000 years ago and are the same as the diatoms being deposited in Japanese lakes today. They were taken from the core for microscopy using Scotch Tape. You couldn't do that with rocks.What, certain fossils are found there??? OK, so what, these ones are soft?
There was no global flood and there is no evidence of it in these cores or in the corse of many other lakes around the world. These soft sediments would have been several disturbed and even washed out of the lake by a flood that supposedly covered all the mountains.No. But if there were varved formations form pre flood, and later kept getting more layers, as they were now laid down, yearly, how would we know?
Actually there are about 100,000 varves but only about 40,000 can be carbon dated because the 14C in the older varves has decayed beyond the point it can be measured.Another thing I wonder, is if the Lake S may be post flood, but in the 100 and some odd years still former state universe!? Your figure of 40,000 doesn't seem that high. 365 days in a year, times say, 107 years, is about 39,055! Coincidence? If you want to dredge up more than your number, we can look at a few a day! Different carbon levels, and carbon even involved in the life processes mean that a present based starting point, working backward is useless!
If these massive continental moves had occurred there would have been massive earthquakes that would have stirred up all these lakes and greatly disturbed the sediments. [/quote]You FIRST need that elusive same state past. UNLESS it was after the flood, as I wondered about, or, was an area somehow protected somewhat, before the massive continental moves.
FB:The curves show the correlation. They test the assumptions and show that they are valid and you can't explain them with a "different past"dad: Yes, I can. Keep the curves in reality, not in imagination.
The curves are constructed from data not dreams. Data that you can't explain.If we look at what data, precisely the curves are based on, in any one instance, we see that the curves are woven with dreams.
How profound. What you can't do is explain the data from the tests and observations.Yes, knowledge involves some knowing. Testing involves some testing. Observing involves an observer.
More bluster and blather with no substance. How typical.Need more?? You really are hung up on weaving together same state based stories, to try to give them credence. No. A cord is only as good as the threads it is made of, and yours are just unable to stand. Strand by strand, they cannot stand, understand, O little man?
They are soft enough to have been disturbed for several layers by the earthquake of 1662 and the very top layers are disturbed by motor boats running cruises on the lake. They are soft enough to be sampled with Scotch tape after they are obtained. Lake Suigetsu is near coast at an elevation of about 100 meters. It is surrounded by higher ground. To claim that a global flood that covered all the mountains would have left them undisturbed is so bizarre that I am surprised even you would think of it and that is saying something.I would be interested to find that out. How soft are they, how far down? Would flooding the area now wipe them all out, if so, why??
MoreThe business of having atoms do what they now do, that includes decay. How the atoms spin, and dance now, is not the dance of the past, unless you give us that same state past. You can't What are you missing there??
The lakes we are discussing are there today. The sediments are being deposited now just as they have been for many thousands of years.They are anual. But we need a present state of affairs to make them annual also in the far past. That, is the issue, not how they are laid down now. The correlations are just same past dating. How would that not have some sort of pattern, looking at matrials, and isotopes, and carbon. etc? The important thing first, to determine, is when the formation was laid down.
These lakes are there today. Your handwaving about basements won't help. To see the surroundings just go to the lakes. You can find Suigetsu on Google Maps. Just do a search for it.Having clear details about the area, surroundings, basement, state of universe at the time, etc.
The levels of 14C are measured not assumed. Apparently you don't even know the difference.Looking at what the carbon dating is based on, that you think is collaboration, what do we really have in the real world? What is it in the varves we actually see, that supposedly dates it? Don't try to kick sand, and obfuscate matters. What curve is it, in this lake itself you think you can show? What is the curve based on, exactly, that is the question. Of the varves, in particular. Since this is the thread about that. Let's see the idea stand on it's own two feet. . ' " Here is the line of logic which shows that C14 works. 1. We see the Lake bloom with algae every year, today. 2. we see the algae die and make a white layer on the lake bottom. 3. We have no reason to think that the white layers are formed in any other way. 4. we see one white layer per year. With this, we can then count the white layers to get what year the white layer was deposited. There are 100,000 of them in the lake (which presents its own problem for YEC apart from carbon 14) In the layers are found some leaves and twigs which can be dated and then the dates compared with the layer count.. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm Seems like the whole thing depends on assumptions of carbon in far past twigs and leaves? Think that can cover your nakedness here??
(Kitagawa and van der Plecht, Science 279, 1187 (1998): The 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratios of more than 250 terrestrial macrofossils (leaves, twigs, and insect wings) in the sediments were measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Groningen AMS facility (What part of measured don't you understand? Varves are counted 14C is measured. Tree rings are counted 14C is measured. When 900 rings and 900 varves were counted and the ratios of 14C/12C compared they agreed. When 14C/12C ratios in historical objects known to be 900 years old are measured they also agree. When we count 5000 tree rings and 5000 varves and measure their ratios of 14C/12C they agree. When we count 11,000 rings and 11,000 varves they agree. Nowhere in the tree rings or lake varves (Or ice cores or sediments from The Cariaco basin or coral couplets for that matter) is there even a hint on any global flood or change of state of the universe.13), after proper sample pretreatment
If you are claim that those varves that appear to be formed after 4,500 years were formed either preflood and somehow survived the flood or post flood during 100 years of magic physics and those tree rings dating from 4,500 years to 11,000 years were also formed in your magic myth by some fashion, how is that the levels of 14C in the rings continue to decline just as if they formed annually and the levels of 14C in varves (of which there are many more) also decline as if they formed annually and are the same as those in the tree rings? Why do the tree ring and varve data also agree with data from a different method of dating coral couplets(U-Th) and with data from other sediments including several other lakes around the world?
You may think you have answered this somehow but you have not. Your "different past" with no radiometric decay does not explain these data no matter how many dad-hoc handwaves you make.
No idea what you are talking about, yours are not exact, as you admit, but they fit the bible just fine, in light of a different past. In fact, it makes a lot more sense. How they made the first pyramids, for example, from a present state viewpoint, has long been considered by many, a mystery! Sure, one can contort some imagination station dream scenario, where there are zillions of workers, pulleys, blah blah. But the simpler explanation seems to be it was just a lot easier back then.The Egyptian and other early civilization dates are not exact but not nearly "wrong" enough for your infant earth myth.
FALSE!!!!! Only with your misconceptions of how far back they go!!! The closer you get to the dawn of history, which amounts to the dawn of this state, by the way, the further your present only based imaginary guesses at dates gets from the truth. In fact, I think there is a pattern to the error curve, I seem to remember somewhere seeing! A pattern you would mistake, possibly for something else.This is an unsupported assertion you make everytime the subject comes up but a seperate falsification of your myth that is off topic here. The C14 dates obtained from tree ring and varve calibrations do agree with known historical dates as far back as known historical dates go.
Well, try showing a real tree ring from more than 4500 in depth!? If not, don't claim stuff about them, like there is no difference at all, and etc! How would you know?? How is the data from the varves obtained? Is it twigs and leaves???!!I previously uploaded a figure showing the correlation of tree ring dates and dates from lake varves from two lakes in Germany going from the present back to 11,000 years ago for the rings and 14,000 years ago for the lakes.
OK, so in your imaginary state past, and non existent years, there was no time to lithify. Now, can soft layers be pushed together, say in a continental move?? If so, we have other possibilities. In the case of the hard Green River varves, that might be a little more difficult, to bash them up against each other, still leaving a nice flat pattern. But here you say they are soft. Another thing to look at is the composition. If we mix, say the wrong amount of lime in concrete, and etc, we would not have it get hard! Could there be any compositional differences at play here?? Seems to me all you try to do is hand wave, without really looking at the details. You are in such a hurry to recite your same old, same old story.These varves only date back 100,000 years at the most (Though there are lamina in Lake Baikal that date back much futher). That is not enough time for lithification to have occured. I think you are still confused by our previous discussion of the millions of varves in the Eocene Green River formation. Those varves formed about 40 million years ago and have had time to lithify. The millions of Green River varves are a different falsification of your myth from the one we are discussing here.
Funny how you talk the talk, but never walked the walk, in showing how it purportedly was supported!No it is supported by science. We have also discussed that before. Myth is things like talking serpents and women turning into pillars of salt.
So, the ones at the, say, 20 level down, are identical to the ones, say, 20 varves up from the bottom? So far I think you posted a teensy picture of some supposedly near the lake bottom. That hardly establishes a totally uniform picture of all 40,000 layers. And, it is in the details, where we might focus in on any potential little difference. It might have missed the notice of those not looking for it. A good place to start, would be establishing that no uplift, and diturbance occured in the area, to squish the soft stuff together, making a bigger pack of mud, or whatever you call the soft stuff. Then, if one can proceed past that point, or needs to, one can look in the 4400, to 4800 deep range, for any change in pattern, or glitch, or burp. Until then, seems to me all you do is hand wave, and talk about imagination.How about the fact that they form continuous sequences with those laid down annually today with no break from the present to back many thousands of years. How about the fact that c14 amounts agree with tree rings going back from the present to both the historical and prehistorical past?
Meaning what? They have same past state tattooed on their dead foreheads?? Or, that they are similar creatures, and plants?? Not sure that should be a surprise?All the varves in modern lakes are soft. The fossils are the same as modern organisms in the lakes.
The diatoms in the picture I have a pictures from a core 7.5-8 meters deep showing a detail of diatoms that are the same as modern diatoms that were deposited in the lake today. I am past my upload limit or I would upload it. In this particular portion of the core they were deposited only about 7,000 years ago and are the same as the diatoms being deposited in Japanese lakes today. They were taken from the core for microscopy using Scotch Tape. You couldn't do that with rocks.
Well, if, say, the century of the different state deposited them at a far faster level, and our rate kicked in about 4500, or 4400 years ago, the stuff from 7000 deep would be in that century, or in the pre flood time, depending on other evidences. I mentioned a good place to start looking here already, if one proves that a fast continent move, and piling up could not have affected the layered area.Assuming what? Gravity as is, and a set of laws as is, and a universe fabric as is, and a quiet world after the flood, without the planetary earth movements, etc??There was no global flood and there is no evidence of it in these cores or in the corse of many other lakes around the world. These soft sediments would have been several disturbed and even washed out of the lake by a flood that supposedly covered all the mountains.Ha!!! In other words, we have an area there, where a clear difference is shown!!!!!!! Thanks for that! Your dream explanation, same state past explanation, is that it all decayed away. Yeah right!!! I will say, that it is different in the carbon department!!! We might be onto something here. Keep up the good work.Actually there are about 100,000 varves but only about 40,000 can be carbon dated because the 14C in the older varves has decayed beyond the point it can be measured.Not if the move was in the former state! Your dreams can't be realized there. Or imaginary mega quakes, doom, etc.If these massive continental moves had occurred there would have been massive earthquakes that would have stirred up all these lakes and greatly disturbed the sediments.Your error curves are from data all right. Your interpretation of them is the sad part.The curves are constructed from data not dreams. Data that you can't explain.I do not say yet that is the case, until the effects of the great and rapid continent move are factored in. Until the state of the world, at the time of the flood, and deposition is factored in. Etc.They are soft enough to have been disturbed for several layers by the earthquake of 1662 and the very top layers are disturbed by motor boats running cruises on the lake. They are soft enough to be sampled with Scotch tape after they are obtained. Lake Suigetsu is near coast at an elevation of about 100 meters. It is surrounded by higher ground. To claim that a global flood that covered all the mountains would have left them undisturbed is so bizarre that I am surprised even you would think of it and that is saying something.OK, I'll try to look at that when I get time. But isn't Japan an active quake area, the ring of fire!? Wouldn't that put it near the front lines of rapid continental movement, if quakes are residual effects of that move?? You case isn't looking good so far. And I haven't even rolled up my sleeves yet.These lakes are there today. Your handwaving about basements won't help. To see the surroundings just go to the lakes. You can find Suigetsu on Google Maps. Just do a search for it.The levels are not an issue. Any different state life processes, and earth could produce different levels. Your same state attempt at explaining why they exist is where the fables start, and myth rules supreme. Gotta run, the rest of the post will have to wait.The levels of 14C are measured not assumed. Apparently you don't even know the difference.
If you have 40,000 layers and the earth is 6,000 years old, then you would have had to accumulate 6.66 layers per year.
We all know that this is the number of the antichrist.
Your fantasy about a global flood during the 5th or 6th Egyptian dynasty doesn't fit anywhere but your mind but I really don't want to get into it here. If you want to rehash all your absolute nonsense about all of civilization developing in 4,500 years since a global flood start another thread.No idea what you are talking about, yours are not exact, as you admit, but they fit the bible just fine, in light of a different past. In fact, it makes a lot more sense. How they made the first pyramids, for example, from a present state viewpoint, has long been considered by many, a mystery! Sure, one can contort some imagination station dream scenario, where there are zillions of workers, pulleys, blah blah. But the simpler explanation seems to be it was just a lot easier back then.
FB:The C14 dates obtained from tree ring and varve calibrations do agree with known historical dates as far back as known historical dates go. I previously uploaded a figure showing the correlation of tree ring dates and dates from lake varves from two lakes in Germany going from the present back to 11,000 years ago for the rings and 14,000 years ago for the lakes.
The data correlate with historical dates as I said and data from the varves and tree rings correlate with each other much further back indicating that both are annual. This is what you have been unable to refute. All have done and all you can do isFALSE!!!!!Only with your misconceptions of how far back they go!!! The closer you get to the dawn of history, which amounts to the dawn of this state, by the way, the further your present only based imaginary guesses at dates gets from the truth.
What?In fact, I think there is a pattern to the error curve, I seem to remember somewhere seeing! A pattern you would mistake, possibly for something else. Well, try showing a real tree ring from more than 4500 in depth!?
I presented graphs of the data. So did JWU in the OP and I presented pictures of some of the varves. It is clear that you are just blustering because you can't refute or explain the correlations in the data.If not, don't claim stuff about them, like there is no difference at all, and etc! How would you know?? How is the data from the varves obtained? Is it twigs and leaves???!!
In the real world there was time for the Green River varves to lithify. In your fantasy past you need to invoke some ad-hoc mechanism to lithify the millions of Green River varves but not lithify 100,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu.OK, so in your imaginary state past, and non existent years, there was no time to lithify.
Not and stay as uniform layers in the bottom of a lake. I have to conclude that there is no practical limit to the absurdities you will try to invoke.Now, can soft layers be pushed together, say in a continental move??
Impossible is a better word.In the case of the hard Green River varves, that might be a little more difficult, to bash them up against each other, still leaving a nice flat pattern.
Just anotherBut here you say they are soft. Another thing to look at is the composition. If we mix, say the wrong amount of lime in concrete, and etc, we would not have it get hard! Could there be any compositional differences at play here??
Another irony meter exploded by dad-hoc the great hand waver.Seems to me all you try to do is hand wave, without really looking at the details.
I posted the data. You can't refute them so you just bluster as always.You are in such a hurry to recite your same old, same old story. Funny how you talk the talk, but never walked the walk, in showing how it purportedly was supported!
I posted a picture of about 500 varves from about 7.5-8 meters down on an 11 meter core. The main core that Kitagawa used was 75 meters so while these varves were from around 6,500-7,000 years ago they were not near the bottom of the sediments. Kitagawa counted varves down to about 30.5 meters.So, the ones at the, say, 20 level down, are identical to the ones, say, 20 varves up from the bottom? So far I think you posted a teensy picture of some supposedly near the lake bottom.
In other words you are looking for some little detail that will get you out of the mess you are in. High resolution digital images were used to count the varves but they were not presented in that paper. You will note that I have also presented data from several other glacial lakes that calibrate with tree ring data right through the time you claim there was a global flood followed by rapid continent movemnet and the lakes show absolutely no evidence of said flood or rapid continent movement.That hardly establishes a totally uniform picture of all 40,000 layers. And, it is in the details, where we might focus in on any potential little difference.
If it did they wouldn't be able to count the varves and the sediments would appear too young not too old as many varves would be wiped out and the 14C levels would not correlate with tree ring data.It might have missed the notice of those not looking for it. A good place to start, would be establishing that no uplift, and diturbance occured in the area, to squish the soft stuff together, making a bigger pack of mud, or whatever you call the soft stuff.
The data from Lakes, Meerfeld Maar and Lake Holzmaar show no such blips around 4400-4800 deep. Neither do the varves in lake Suigetsu as far as I can tell from a presentation I found by Kitagawa that describes them in more detail than the Science paper.Then, if one can proceed past that point, or needs to, one can look in the 4400, to 4800 deep range, for any change in pattern, or glitch, or burp.
A case of the black pot calling the white porcelain sink black.Until then, seems to me all you do is hand wave,
and talk about imagination.
Of course it is not a surprise that layers deposited over a short period of 40,000 years have similar organisms in them. The correlations between the data from tree rings, lake varves coral couplets, marine sediments and ice cores going back at least 11,000 years provide definitive evidence falsifying your "different past" fantasy.Meaning what? They have same past state tattooed on their dead foreheads?? Or, that they are similar creatures, and plants?? Not sure that should be a surprise?
It would have affected it by totally disrupting the layering. These layers falsify your recent continent movement along with your other nonsense.Well, if, say, the century of the different state deposited them at a far faster level, and our rate kicked in about 4500, or 4400 years ago, the stuff from 7000 deep would be in that century, or in the pre flood time, depending on other evidences. I mentioned a good place to start looking here already, if one proves that a fast continent move, and piling up could not have affected the layered area.
As always all you can do is blather, bluster and wave and the paragraph above is a classic example. These fantasies in no way explain the data or the correlations in the data.Assuming what? Gravity as is, and a set of laws as is, and a universe fabric as is, and a quiet world after the flood, without the planetary earth movements, etc?? Ha!!! In other words, we have an area there, where a clear difference is shown!!!!!!! Thanks for that! Your dream explanation, same state past explanation, is that it all decayed away. Yeah right!!! I will say, that it is different in the carbon department!!! We might be onto something here. Keep up the good work. Not if the move was in the former state! Your dreams can't be realized there. Or imaginary mega quakes, doom, etc.
It is not just my interpretation. It is the interpretation of everyone who knows some science and is capable of logical thought. You clearly meet neither criterion.Your error curves are from data all right. Your interpretation of them is the sad part.
The great and rapid continent movement is a fantasy. If either it or a global flood had occurred less than 5,000 years ago these uniform varved sequences in lake bottoms, that have 14C levels correlating to tree rings could not exist. They would all have been totally jumbled up and wiped out.I do not say yet that is the case, until the effects of the great and rapid continent move are factored in. Until the state of the world, at the time of the flood, and deposition is factored in. Etc. OK, I'll try to look at that when I get time.
The Kanbun earthquake of 1662 does show up. The reason others don’t is the plate movement is not all that fast.But isn't Japan an active quake area, the ring of fire!? Wouldn't that put it near the front lines of rapid continental movement, if quakes are residual effects of that move??
Your case was demolished by the OP and you haven’t helped it.You case isn't looking good so far. And I haven't even rolled up my sleeves yet.
Just more handwaving that explains nothing.The levels are not an issue. Any different state life processes, and earth could produce different levels.
You are the one with myths and fables as everyone can see but you.Your same state attempt at explaining why they exist is where the fables start, and myth rules supreme.
You still don’t understand the implication of the correlation between 14C in lake varves and tree rings do you? Of course you don’t dare understand it because if you did you would realize it demolishes your different past mythology.Gotta run, the rest of the post will have to wait.
.Yes, but according to the earlyest known manuscripts of the bible that number is 616 not 666.
Revelaton 13:18 --- AV1389 Wycliffe Version said:Here is wisdom; he that hath vndurstonding, acounte the noumbre of the beeste; for it is the noumbre of man, and his noumbre is sixe hundrid sixti and sixe.
If you have 40,000 layers and the earth is 6,000 years old, then you would have had to accumulate 6.66 layers per year.
We all know that this is the number of the antichrist.
AV1611VET said:"Here is wisdom; he that hath vndurstonding, acounte the noumbre of the beeste; for it is the noumbre of man, and his noumbre is sixe hundrid sixti and ]b]sixe[/b]." --- Revelaton 13:18, AV1389 Wycliffe Version
I don't think JohnR7 is around anymore unless this thread brings him out of the woodwork. I haven't seem him post for quite a while. That is one problem with resurrecting old threads.(This version seems to have been prepared by and for those challenged by spelling.
Please note, JohnR7, that the number cited is called the "number of a man". It does not, save perhaps in a disordered imagination, pertain to geological strata.
Yes, but according to the earlyest known manuscripts of the bible that number is 616 not 666.
That is yours, not mine. The flood, far as I can tell was before Egypt, as I said, your dates are religious hooey.Your fantasy about a global flood during the 5th or 6th Egyptian dynasty doesn't fit anywhere but your mind but I really don't want to get into it here.
No need to, far as I am concerned it is irrefutable fact. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it.If you want to rehash all your absolute nonsense about all of civilization developing in 4,500 years since a global flood start another thread.
If you mean dates that are real, such as real known historical dates, that is fine.If you mean the date of building the first pyramid, that is nonsense. The accuracy diminishes as we get to the split, and no science opposes that. Period. You can stomp your feet all you like.The data correlate with historical dates as I said
Baloney. You can't even get to early Egypt.and data from the varves and tree rings correlate with each other much further back indicating that both are annual.
Refuting imaginary correlations, that are really error curves is simple. Look at what you are trying to avoid, the basis of what the actual curve is based on! That is same past dating, for which you simply have no verifiable same past.This is what you have been unable to refute.
They did get hard, yes. How much time that required depends on many things.In the real world there was time for the Green River varves to lithify.
I can mix a batch of hardening concrete, and non hardening. We also can have pre flood varves, and post flood varves. There are many reasons not every spot on earth is the same, all the time. Some water is salty, some fresh, for example.In your fantasy past you need to invoke some ad-hoc mechanism to lithify the millions of Green River varves but not lithify 100,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu.
No? I think a simple statement from you doesn't really cut it. I could say that a glss of water would spill, if I drove it a few blocks in a car. But, some people could do it without spilling it. How would we know that a certain area was not pushed around in a fairly even way??Not and stay as uniform layers in the bottom of a lake.
No, lithification in any different state involves a lot of differences. You just like to imagine it was always the same, so you need great time to mix in your religion.and as I predicted above a dad-hoc attempt to explain lithification.
OK, in English, now, how many varves down from the top is that??I posted a picture of about 500 varves from about 7.5-8 meters down on an 11 meter core.
The main core that Kitagawa used was 75 meters so while these varves were from around 6,500-7,000 years ago they were not near the bottom of the sediments. Kitagawa counted varves down to about 30.5 meters.
Not presented, then is where your purported evidence remains! Convenient. Maybe the pics are hiding in your cousin's closet? You cannot produce tree rings, or actual varves from the area in question, and instead beg us to look at error curves, from la la land, as some sort of evidence! That is wiggling, not debate.In other words you are looking for some little detail that will get you out of the mess you are in. High resolution digital images were used to count the varves but they were not presented in that paper.
No, I will note you cannot show me the rings from the questionable zone. Not the varves!!! How can you claim to callibrate tree rings from 44 - 4600 years ago, when you can't produce any? Is this some matter of national security, where they need to be kept hidden?? If a formation was in the right place, I don't see how it would need to get upset all that much, in a move. True, some areas saw mountain building, and etc, but even there, one could imagine little areas that may have been pushed along, in a fairly gentle manner?You will note that I have also presented data from several other glacial lakes that calibrate with tree ring data right through the time you claim there was a global flood followed by rapid continent movemnet and the lakes show absolutely no evidence of said flood or rapid continent movement.
What wiped out the varves here, now? Are you saying that packing them up, or compressing together of soft layers would wipe some out? Again, is it just the twigs and leaves in the varves, whose carbon is measured to get a date for the varves? But that is all getting a little confusing. Since we could put down the 40,000 in the post flood century, I guess there is no need to explore any exotic causes.If it did they wouldn't be able to count the varves and the sediments would appear too young not too old as many varves would be wiped out and the 14C levels would not correlate with tree ring data.
That seems to make sense to you, in your head. Problem is, out here, where we look at evidence, you forgot to produce any! I didn't see a picture of the varves at this level why is that? Is it in hiding as well? What sort of "blip" is it you think we should see? How would we know if there was nothing at all, take your word for it? If you make the claim, show us.The data from Lakes, Meerfeld Maar and Lake Holzmaar show no such blips around 4400-4800 deep. Neither do the varves in lake Suigetsu as far as I can tell from a presentation I found by Kitagawa that describes them in more detail than the Science paper.
Except that they do not go back that far, save in your head. If the thousands of layers were put down, say, post flood, or even before, it is no surprise that similar creatures liked the water there. There you go again with the lumping together of things, when you get into hot water on one thing. The dating of the varves, man. The details, man. Leaves and twigs, in a formation that could have been laid down quickly in the past. That is all we have here. You want to talk twigs, fine, tell us about the carbon in them, and the details of the dating. I think we already know you can't back up other things either, like the tree rings. I see no picture of the rings 44-4700 deep! Yet you try to tell us stuff about them!!! 'Oh, there is no small difference at all, in them' blah blah.Of course it is not a surprise that layers deposited over a short period of 40,000 years have similar organisms in them. The correlations between the data from tree rings, lake varves coral couplets, marine sediments and ice cores going back at least 11,000 years provide definitive evidence falsifying your "different past" fantasy.
No, I see no reason for that. The ark got all over the place fine, thank you very much. By the way, I may be missing something here, but I see that Japan just 'happens' to be the area at the edge of this map! Of all areas, this one seems not to have moved at all, if much?? The plot thickens!It would have affected it by totally disrupting the layering. These layers falsify your recent continent movement along with your other nonsense.
How would the edge of the map, Japan, be expected to have had a lake all that messed up, in a plate move? You got some splainin to do.font color="black"> The great and rapid continent movement is a fantasy. If either it or a global flood had occurred less than 5,000 years ago these uniform varved sequences in lake bottoms, that have 14C levels correlating to tree rings could not exist. They would all have been totally jumbled up and wiped out.
[/quote] Implications of things in dreams do not bother me. Error curves are expected, call them what you fantasize, it doesn't help you. You have no tree rings, on offer, to back your claims there was some perfect uniformity, at the 44 -4700 level! You haven't shown us the varves from that time. "Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a chronology extending over a period of 29,100 years. They were also able to measure and match the "C-14 age" of samples taken with the core to the ages and carbon-14 levels documented for the tree ring data for an overlap period starting 8,830 years ago." http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm#Lake_Suigetsu_Varves !!!! Starting way before creation! Starting before the split. Before the flood. How about let's look at the trees, or varves at the proper time. Then, from that link, I also note this "This is a "floating" chronology, as it does not have accurate data up to the present due to the coring technology and the characteristics of the recently deposited silty clay bottom before it gets compacted by time and later depositions." The recent stuff doesn't sound quites as similar as you seem to put on!!!! It is so different, they can't even use it!!!You still dont understand the implication of the correlation between 14C in lake varves and tree rings do you? Of course you dont dare understand it because if you did you would realize it demolishes your different past mythology.
I'll address the absurd idea that there was a global flood during the 5th or 6th Egyptian dynasty again later. It is off topic here.That is yours, not mine. The flood, far as I can tell was before Egypt, as I said, your dates are religious hooey. No need to, far as I am concerned it is irrefutable fact. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it. If you mean dates that are real, such as real known historical dates, that is fine.If you mean the date of building the first pyramid, that is nonsense. The accuracy diminishes as we get to the split, and no science opposes that. Period. You can stomp your feet all you like. Baloney. You can't even get to early Egypt.
But you have not done it and can't.Refuting imaginary correlations, that are really error curves is simple. Look at what you are trying to avoid, the basis of what the actual curve is based on! That is same past dating, for which you simply have no verifiable same past.
They did get hard, yes. How much time that required depends on many things. I can mix a batch of hardening concrete, and non hardening. We also can have pre flood varves, and post flood varves. There are many reasons not every spot on earth is the same, all the time. Some water is salty, some fresh, for example. No? I think a simple statement from you doesn't really cut it. I could say that a glss of water would spill, if I drove it a few blocks in a car. But, some people could do it without spilling it. How would we know that a certain area was not pushed around in a fairly even way?? No, lithification in any different state involves a lot of differences. You just like to imagine it was always the same, so you need great time to mix in your religion. OK, in English, now, how many varves down from the top is that?? Not presented, then is where your purported evidence remains! Convenient. Maybe the pics are hiding in your cousin's closet? You cannot produce tree rings, or actual varves from the area in question, and instead beg us to look at error curves, from la la land, as some sort of evidence! That is wiggling, not debate. No, I will note you cannot show me the rings from the questionable zone. Not the varves!!! How can you claim to callibrate tree rings from 44 - 4600 years ago, when you can't produce any? Is this some matter of national security, where they need to be kept hidden?? If a formation was in the right place, I don't see how it would need to get upset all that much, in a move. True, some areas saw mountain building, and etc, but even there, one could imagine little areas that may have been pushed along, in a fairly gentle manner? What wiped out the varves here, now? Are you saying that packing them up, or compressing together of soft layers would wipe some out? Again, is it just the twigs and leaves in the varves, whose carbon is measured to get a date for the varves? But that is all getting a little confusing. Since we could put down the 40,000 in the post flood century, I guess there is no need to explore any exotic causes. That seems to make sense to you, in your head. Problem is, out here, where we look at evidence, you forgot to produce any! I didn't see a picture of the varves at this level why is that? Is it in hiding as well? What sort of "blip" is it you think we should see? How would we know if there was nothing at all, take your word for it? If you make the claim, show us. Except that they do not go back that far, save in your head. If the thousands of layers were put down, say, post flood, or even before, it is no surprise that similar creatures liked the water there. There you go again with the lumping together of things, when you get into hot water on one thing. The dating of the varves, man. The details, man. Leaves and twigs, in a formation that could have been laid down quickly in the past. That is all we have here. You want to talk twigs, fine, tell us about the carbon in them, and the details of the dating. I think we already know you can't back up other things either, like the tree rings. I see no picture of the rings 44-4700 deep! Yet you try to tell us stuff about them!!! 'Oh, there is no small difference at all, in them' blah blah. No, I see no reason for that. The ark got all over the place fine, thank you very much. By the way, I may be missing something here, but I see that Japan just 'happens' to be the area at the edge of this map! Of all areas, this one seems not to have moved at all, if much?? The plot thickens!!!!!!
Because the "plate move" has occurred over hundreds of millions of years and the lake sediments only go back about 100,000. The fact that they are not messed up is just more evidence, as if more was needed, that your rapid continent move is a pure fantasy.How would the edge of the map, Japan, be expected to have had a lake all that messed up, in a plate move? You got some splainin to do.
If you actually look at the curves in the OP you will see that Kitagawa and van der Plecht did correlate some earlier data but they were not really interested in data before 8,000 years ago because those dates are well coverd by tree ring and varve data provided by other studies. You are ignoring the the data from the two German lakes that I presented that go right through the time of your mythical split and flood with no indication of either occurring because both are fantasies. None of the authors of any of these papers write about anything unusual in the varves or tree ring structures before 8,000 years BP. (Except that Kitagawa and van der Plicht mention the disturbance from the 1662 earth quake and the presence of ash layers from a couple of volcanoes. I have another paper by Kitagawa et al which specifically states that laminated sediments from three cores were counted and precisely correlated between the disturbance of the 1662 Kanbun earthquake and a layer in each core containing ash from the Kikai-Akhoya volcano 7,282 years ago. It also states that the annual nature of the laminations was confirmed with detailed studies of diatom and mineral composition and both optical and scanning electron microscopy.Implications of things in dreams do not bother me. Error curves are expected, call them what you fantasize, it doesn't help you. You have no tree rings, on offer, to back your claims there was some perfect uniformity, at the 44 -4700 level! You haven't shown us the varves from that time. "Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a chronology extending over a period of 29,100 years. They were also able to measure and match the "C-14 age" of samples taken with the core to the ages and carbon-14 levels documented for the tree ring data for an overlap period starting 8,830 years ago." http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm#Lake_Suigetsu_Varves !!!! Starting way before creation! Starting before the split. Before the flood. How about let's look at the trees, or varves at the proper time. Then, from that link, I also note this "This is a "floating" chronology, as it does not have accurate data up to the present due to the coring technology and the characteristics of the recently deposited silty clay bottom before it gets compacted by time and later depositions." The recent stuff doesn't sound quites as similar as you seem to put on!!!! It is so different, they can't even use it!!!
Emphasis mine.Wikipedia said:In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques[9] had been able to read previously illegible portions of the earliest known record of the Book of Revelation, from the Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P115, dating to the mid to late third century. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (chi, iota, stigma), rather than the majority text 666 (chi, xi, stigma).[1] The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it written in full: hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen).[10]
Significantly, P115 aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation. Thus, P115 has superior testimony to that of P47 which aligns with Codex Sinaiticus and together form the second-best witness to the Book of Revelation. This has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast.[11][12]
Dr. Paul Lewes in his book, A Key to Christian Origins (1932) wrote:"The figure 616 is given in one of the two best manuscripts, C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Paris), by the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and by an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybaere, 1907). Irenaeus knew about it [the 616 reading], but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3), Jerome adopted it (De Monogramm., ed. Dom G Morin in the Rev. Benedictine, 1903). It is probably original. The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6...+36 = 666)".[13]Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. Dr. Ellen Aitken said, Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast. It's probably about 100 years before any other version."[14]
Before the first pyramid. Focus.I'll address the absurd idea that there was a global flood during the 5th or 6th Egyptian dynasty again later. It is off topic here.
Balderdash. I am not sure why you recite old age religion here. Just keep it, because, until you provide a same state past, it is intellectual garbage.Because the "plate move" has occurred over hundreds of millions of years and the lake sediments only go back about 100,000.
Repetition without support is mere rudeness. It is easy to conceive that that area didn't even move much, from the map of the continental separation I linked. You didn't even address that.The fact that they are not messed up is just more evidence, as if more was needed, that your rapid continent move is a pure fantasy.
No they aren't, only same past assumed growth, in a same past state imaginary data. Religion.If you actually look at the curves in the OP you will see that Kitagawa and van der Plecht did correlate some earlier data but they were not really interested in data before 8,000 years ago because those dates are well coverd by tree ring and varve data provided by other studies.
Not at all, I simply notice every attempt at confusing the issue you make is pathetically weak. So it is best to simply attack the one in the thread here.You are ignoring the the data from the two German lakes that I presented that go right through the time of your mythical split and flood with no indication of either occurring because both are fantasies.
Did they write that they saw all the varves, and they are perfectly uniform all the way to the top? Or are you just reading stuff in there!?None of the authors of any of these papers write about anything unusual in the varves or tree ring structures before 8,000 years BP. (Except that Kitagawa and van der Plicht mention the disturbance from the 1662 earth quake and the presence of ash layers from a couple of volcanoes.
Precisely correlated, eh? Meaning what? They are all the same, or there are some twigs along the way, that the carbon was used to correlate, or ??I have another paper by Kitagawa et al which specifically states that laminated sediments from three cores were counted and precisely correlated between the disturbance of the 1662 Kanbun earthquake and a layer in each core containing ash from the Kikai-Akhoya volcano 7,282 years ago.
In other words, present state assumptions. Gee, what a surprise. All stand. So, what about the tree rings from 44-4700 deep you made claims about> Ready to admit you made them in ignorance??? Or are you ready to pony up the goods, and show us the actual rings?? Same with varves in the area in question here??? Put up, or, fess up. Ready to admit that Egypt dates are pure same past decay religion? How about the discussion of how the varves were dated, why have you avoided that? And, the map of the area the lake is in, seems to be possibly unmoved by the separation? Is your strange silence a tacit admission of this??? Mo need to disturb it, if it was post flood, now is there!!! Maybe you better have a rest, and go do some homework here.It also states that the annual nature of the laminations was confirmed with detailed studies of diatom and mineral composition and both optical and scanning electron microscopy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?