Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[verysincere]

Sorry, I had to say the last two words, the whole idea of embedded age makes no logical sense to me.

It makes no logical sense to ANYONE. Those who promote it do so because of religious dogma based upon an individual's much cherished traditional interpretation of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I had to say the last two words, the whole idea of embedded age makes no logical sense to me. If you create something with maturity, there is no need to embed age.

I understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes no logical sense to ANYONE.

Try theological sense, then.

 

[CabVet]

Try theological sense, then.

Nope, embedded age is neither mentioned nor implied in the Bible. Much like flood waters coming from Pluto.

 

[verysincere]

Nope, embedded age is neither mentioned nor implied in the Bible. Much like flood waters coming from Pluto.

One of the problems of having "tares among the wheat" is that the tares are always trying to blame their illogical fantasies on the Bible---even though the Bible is in no way to blame for their nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, embedded age is neither mentioned nor implied in the Bible.

Anasema wewe.

Much like flood waters coming from Pluto.

Who says that?

 

[Split Rock]

Nope, embedded age is neither mentioned nor implied in the Bible. Much like flood waters coming from Pluto.

Who says that?

Yeah man... it is Neptune, not Pluto. Pluto got Plutoed in a rigged vote that AVET didn't like. Keep it straight, dude!

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, embedded age is neither mentioned nor implied in the Bible. Much like flood waters coming from Pluto.

Yeah man... it is Neptune, not Pluto. Pluto got Plutoed in a rigged vote that AVET didn't like. Keep it straight, dude!

You too, Rocky.

I said the Flood waters went to Neptune, not came from Neptune.

 

[46AND2]

You too, Rocky.

I said the Flood waters went to Neptune, not came from Neptune.

OOOHhhhh! Well, THAT makes it more reasonable.

 

[dad]

One of the problems of having "tares among the wheat" is that the tares are always trying to blame their illogical fantasies on the Bible---even though the Bible is in no way to blame for their nonsense.

I have never seen a believing tare?

 

[Aman777]

I have never seen a believing tare?

Dear Dad, Amen. Tares are unworthy of anything but to be gathered, and separated from the wheat, and burned.

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe my first post here in C&E came in this thread.

44

 

[BarryDesborough]

Dear Dad, Amen. Tares are unworthy of anything but to be gathered, and separated from the wheat, and burned.

In Love,
Aman

So people who were burned at the stake for heresy were burned "In Love"?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Pretty much all of you have seen this graph:

It's commonly used to support various dating methods by showinga strong correlation between them, which would be extremely hrd to explain if they were flawed in some major way.

However, there is something else that struck me about it:
Assuming that a global flood happened, all these varves and coral layers elsewhere would have to have formed after that flood. We have things which could not possibly be pre-flood or mid-flood which give very old C14 readings.

In other words, anything which puts off C14 dating would have to have happened after the flood, the flood itself is not a valid explaination for this anymore at all (it never really was...but anyway).


However, this also has strong implications regarding what we should see if we date things of known age. As long as the mysterious process which oddly put both C14 and the lake varves off to the same degree
was still going on we should consistently get too old readings for things of known age - i.e. anything that is 3700 years old should give a ~20,000 years reading if the process took until about 3000 years ago. However, that is not what we observe. E.g. egyptian mummies come up with nice dates.
And tree ring counts (of individual old trees, not sequences patched together from several trees!) indicate that no major changes ocured for a very long time either.
This means that it would have to have happened very rapidly after the supposed flood but before a significant chunk of recorded history and tree ring data began.


So...question to the YECs: How long did it take for the varves to form after the flood?
How many varves formed in the year after the flood?
How many in the year 5 post flood?
Year 10?
Year 20?
Year 50?
Year 100?
...

Please be specific. Any higher resolution of years would be welcome.

There are many more articles about the flood here. Every one a different line of evidence falsifying the idea of a recent global flood.

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Glenn+Morton's+Pages+-+Home

 

[dad]

I believe my first post here in C&E came in this thread.

44

Ha...maybe our last too

 

[dad]

Dear Dad, Amen. Tares are unworthy of anything but to be gathered, and separated from the wheat, and burned.

In Love,
Aman

Great, so much for them preaching then.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Great, so much for them preaching then.

Pretty well condemns himself as a monster out of his own mouth, eh?

 

[dad]

Pretty well condemns himself as a monster out of his own mouth, eh?

The lake in Japan is not apparently right in an area where the rapid continental separation would have changed the terrain all that much if I recall. If I recall right, that would explain why a lot of layers could accumulate in an undisturbed way.

But in any case, the time is imaginary.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The lake in Japan is not apparently right in an area where the rapid continental separation would have changed the terrain all that much if I recall. If I recall right, that would explain why a lot of layers could accumulate in an undisturbed way.

But in any case, the time is imaginary.

The varve count its correlation with carbon isotope ratios is anything but imaginary.

 

[dad]

The varve count its correlation with carbon isotope ratios is anything but imaginary.

So?? Like anyone expects otherwise?