- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Frumious Bandersnatch said:If something that does not now exist was detectable, the split theory would be wrong! According to you, it is not. All is well. We are in a PO universe as predicted.dad said:A process that is undectable in any way.
Well, trees could grow in a week. I don't know that all trees did that. As for varves, I can't say a day either. Far as I know, the light and ohotosyntesis at the time could have produced several batches of layers in that time. I haven't gotten that far yet, cause I was awaiting responses on some preliminary, underlying things first.Think about the correlation between the 14C in tree rings and the lake varves. You claim the lake varves formed about 1 a day but the tree gre in a week.
Gathering or losing carbon need not be a result, must it, of radioactive decay? The world of the past here seems to have a pattern of less carbon, I think you are saying, the further back we go. Look for other causes, than present decay.Why do both tree rings and lake varves have decreasing levels of 14C (from a time when you claim there was no radioactive decay) that make each appear to have formed annually and at the same rate?
Woah. They way the so called agree, is in a present lenses. Assuming things worked the same.The coral couplets and ice cores also agree and appear to have formed at the same rate as the tree rings and lake varves by 14C correlation, even though in your fantasy you need to form very different numbers of these things between the flood and the split.
Now, you say that the still merged universe after the flood that lasted a hundred years I need things to form differently?? I don't see your point there. Why would a pre split world after the flood have some big differences from the pre split world that was before the flood??
You sound a bit delusional here. Guess it still hasn't sunk in, your arguements really have been wiped out here.This alone is enough to falsify your bizarre fantasy totally. You have lost. End of story. All the handwaving you do on the rest of your last post and all you will do in future posts won't help a bit.
dad said:We are talking about after the mythical flood here. Not the Garden of Eden. You just stretch your fantasy farther and farther but it is already stretched way past the breaking point. Now tell us how these rapid changes in micro climate led to decreasing levels of 14C that just happen to look annual in the tree rings that formed, which also just happened to look annual and how the changes just happened to correlate with the rapidly forming lake varves coral couplets and layers in ice cores (didn't the ice first take some time to form after the flood? The cores that are taken sit on top of very thick layers of ice below) that all correlate and just happen to look just like the features that now form on an annual basis.No, right!!
So what? Are you suggesting that a day in the presplit world was uniform? No wetter periods? Get serious. Just replace the summer and winter bits with weeks, days, or even parts of the day.
Wrong, the entire micro climate may have been on a different scale, as I just brought out. Nothing then, to do with seasons. In it's present slowness, it corresponds to seasons, yes, of course. Look at a day for example, cool of the morning, cool of the evening, heat of the day, and other parts of the day. In the pre flood world also, we apparently had a time of day when the waters came up, and watered plants, unlike now as well. Need moisture in a day? You got it. There also apparently may have been a windy part of the day, drying things out. Need dry? You got it.
Trees did grow very very fast then.
F.B.
dad said:We are talking about the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 not gathering or losing carbon.Frumious Bandersnatch said:Gathering or losing carbon need not be a result, must it, of radioactive decay? The world of the past here seems to have a pattern of less carbon, I think you are saying, the further back we go. Look for other causes, than present decay.
The point is that the varves, coral couplets, tree rings and ice layers all have to be post flood. Or maybe you think the global flood somehow didn't affect lake Suigetsu.Woah. They way the so called agree, is in a present lenses. Assuming things worked the same.
Now, you say that the still merged universe after the flood that lasted a hundred years I need things to form differently?? I don't see your point there. Why would a pre split world after the flood have some big differences from the pre split world that was before the flood??
That fact that you are too cluesless to realize that your model is falsified doesn't alter the fact that it is falsified.
F.B.
You assume the dark rings in the past were due to hibernation? Why? Because today's winters require such a thing? Think about it. Black bears in Florida do not hibernate, why? There is food, they don't need to.Loudmouth said:Still doesn't work. It takes an entire winter to create the dark ring for hibernation.
Who says the mist coming up was too wet? You have some evidence for this? Who says that the tree needed as much water in the former light process? Etc Etc.Too wet and the roots will rot. Another problem.
Now, yes. Then, no. Let's not pretend you have the different past all mapped out! Heavens. Let's face it here, if it really was a different past, and fabric of the universe, do you really think anything you could think of would ever really be any problem at all? No.You also need an entire summer of warm weather to get the same thickness.
While things now are living, they have the same ratio of carbon in them as the atmosphere. Let us think for a moment of conditions pre split. Did this also apply to living things, like the biomass that made the laminates?Frumious Bandersnatch said:We are talking about the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 not gathering or losing carbon.
Remember, that since the fall of man, biological life on earth got out of sync with God. It started to die. (Whether some things died before is not an issue here)
Yet, we have the universe, and light, and the state of matter, etc etc, still in the merged state. Does this sound like the living things would have the same carbon balance as the still undecaying, merged world? No, I don't think so?
Now, would we be surprised to see less carbon as we go farther back? I don't think so. How much carbon was produced in the early phases, say of a growing tree at the time? Was it less and less as the tree grew older? If so, would we expect a pattern of less carbon early in thre tree life? Yes. There are so many possibilities.
Unless, you are suggesting that only radioactive decay as we now know it could be responsible? If you claim this, exactly why?
Each area has to be looked at individually. How did the rapid continental seperation affect that area? Did it move the lake undisturbed totally? No thrusts, uplifts, piling up, etc? If so, how do you know? If not, how could this have affected the area? If the area was affected by the flood, possibly a century vbefore this massive movement, how would it be affected? If we covered a lake area with more water, what is it we look for, if it was undisturbed?The point is that the varves, coral couplets, tree rings and ice layers all have to be post flood. Or maybe you think the global flood somehow didn't affect lake Suigetsu.
Sorry, you have a clue to the present, but lack the key to the future and the past, which I have. The fishbowl has no power to falsify the future or past. All those of the bowl can do is raise doubts, and claim anything unfishbowlish is strange. Open your mind.That fact that you are too cluesless to realize that your model is falsified doesn't alter the fact that it is falsified.
dad said:No, right!!
So what? Are you suggesting that a day in the presplit world was uniform? No wetter periods? Get serious. Just replace the summer and winter bits with weeks, days, or even parts of the day.
Wrong, the entire micro climate may have been on a different scale, as I just brought out. Nothing then, to do with seasons. In it's present slowness, it corresponds to seasons, yes, of course. Look at a day for example, cool of the morning, cool of the evening, heat of the day, and other parts of the day. In the pre flood world also, we apparently had a time of day when the waters came up, and watered plants, unlike now as well. Need moisture in a day? You got it. There also apparently may have been a windy part of the day, drying things out. Need dry? You got it.
Trees did grow very very fast then.
No, if a tree could grow in a week, or month, then each day becomes important. The parts of a day, like the parts of a years, for example. Cool morning, and hot afternoons, evenings, etc. It wasn't summer and winter, more like morning and evening, or some such. That is why looking at today's process can give such wildly skewed results.Adriac said:So... You're basically admitting that the entire climate was faster?
Ha. No. But it didn't need that much water to produce a ring then. The water came up, not down. How much could be absorbed in the former light photosyntesis? Likely as much as it needed.So you're talking about having an entire year's worth of climactic variation over the course of a day? twenty inches of rain in the morning, high of 95 around noon, cool down all evening for snowfall during the night?
You simply haven't grasped yet the extent of what is being said, and how different it was, and what a day could do, or a week then.What you're missing is that everything is connected. You can't say, "this was faster", "that was faster", because this and that are intimately related with the nature of the earth. There is no difference between saying "everything was faster" and saying " the time was a lot longer".
dad said:So conservation of mass didn't apply before the split? The trees would also need to absorb a lot CO2 in a hurry. Was the pre-split atmosphere much higher in CO2 then. How did people breathe? The trees would also need to fix a lot of nitrogen from the soil in a hurry also.No, if a tree could grow in a week, or month, then each day becomes important. The parts of a day, like the parts of a years, for example. Cool morning, and hot afternoons, evenings, etc. It wasn't summer and winter, more like morning and evening, or some such. That is why looking at today's process can give such wildly skewed results.
Ha. No. But it didn't need that much water to produce a ring then. The water came up, not down. How much could be absorbed in the former light photosyntesis? Likely as much as it needed.
You simply haven't grasped yet the extent of what is being said, and how different it was, and what a day could do, or a week then.
And yet there is no mention in the Bible of this remarkably different earth between the flood and the "split". You'd think there would some mention that trees now take year to grow instead of days or weeks. Consider the amount of "light" required for this fast growth. You'd think there'd be some mention of the sudden dimming of the lights in the time of Peleg, or the sudden appearance of gravity.
You just can't imagine how silly your nonsense seems to the rest of us can you?
dad said:Somehow their 14C content continues to decline on a per layer basis exactly as if they were annual and the layers that overlap with tree rings chronologies have 14C levels that correlate with those chronologies even though both are supposedly forming under very different conditions and they correlate with both 14C, U-Th dating of corals, and data from ice cores.While things now are living, they have the same ratio of carbon in them as the atmosphere. Let us think for a moment of conditions pre split. Did this also apply to living things, like the biomass that made the laminates?
This doesn't make even the least bit of sense.Remember, that since the fall of man, biological life on earth got out of sync with God. It started to die. (Whether some things died before is not an issue here)
Yet, we have the universe, and light, and the state of matter, etc etc, still in the merged state. Does this sound like the living things would have the same carbon balance as the still undecaying, merged world? No, I don't think so?
No. You really don't get it do you?Now, would we be surprised to see less carbon as we go farther back? I don't think so. How much carbon was produced in the early phases, say of a growing tree at the time? Was it less and less as the tree grew older? If so, would we expect a pattern of less carbon early in thre tree life? Yes.The is no possibility of that you will make any sense of the correlations we are discussing. You are really sounding desperate now.There are so many possibilities.
Are you suggesting there was another form of radioactive decay presplit? I thought there was no decay presplit or maybe a little God directed decay or now maybe whatever you need to try to preserve your consistently inconsistant fantasy.Unless, you are suggesting that only radioactive decay as we now know it could be responsible? If you claim this, exactly why?
Of course you want to look at areas individually. When looked at together they falsify your fantasy even more thoroughly. We have data from a lake in Japan, a Lake in Poland, tree ring chronologies, coral couplets and ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic that all correlate and provide a consistent chronology. Your fantasy of a very different past with different laws of physics 4,500 years ago accounting for the appearance of age in a young earth is totally falsified.Each area has to be looked at individually. How did the rapid continental seperation affect that area? Did it move the lake undisturbed totally? No thrusts, uplifts, piling up, etc? If so, how do you know? If not, how could this have affected the area? If the area was affected by the flood, possibly a century vbefore this massive movement, how would it be affected? If we covered a lake area with more water, what is it we look for, if it was undisturbed?
The Frumious Bandersnatch
The mass that existed was different for starters. No PO mass was conserved. No PO mass existed.Frumious Bandersnatch said:So conservation of mass didn't apply before the split?
Trees were well equiped to receive all they needed from the earth, and air, and light. Just as trees in heaven are. I don't see a tree on earth with a diierent fruit growing every month, do you? How much nitro does that have to suck out of the ground?The trees would also need to absorb a lot CO2 in a hurry. Was the pre-split atmosphere much higher in CO2 then. How did people breathe? The trees would also need to fix a lot of nitrogen from the soil in a hurry also.
The split happened 100 years after the flood, before which was the different world. What is this different stuff between the flood and split? I don't get it.And yet there is no mention in the Bible of this remarkably different earth between the flood and the "split".
After the flood, we still see trees growing in a week or so. Just like before. The trees needed no light to grow that we have ever seen. They used the light that used to exist before the split. A different light.You'd think there would some mention that trees now take year to grow instead of days or weeks. Consider the amount of "light" required for this fast growth.
The changes were so awesome, and huge, that we can be sure men noticed a lot of things different. They noticed that they could not communicate with most people on earth all of a sudden, for example, and had to draw pictures to get thoughts across. (Heirioglypics). They noticed that their continent was wafted away from where it used to be perhaps, and maybe they noticed an ice age! My, the things, in therir reduced lifespans the people then noticed! Perhaps the different forces in place than gravity may have allowed heavy objects to be easily moved as well, and now, things were heavy as could be!? Why, building a pyramid now would take a coon's age if they tried it.You'd think there'd be some mention of the sudden dimming of the lights in the time of Peleg, or the sudden appearance of gravity.
Those bound by the strict limitations of the temporary present (and who assumed the future and past were also so bound) -would see the past they imagined as the same all this time, as very strange, I can see that. Hec, I can hardly believe it.You just can't imagine how silly your nonsense seems to the rest of us can you?
When you say 'continues to decline' that asumes that pre split, the lesser amount of carbon was due to decay as well. Which assumes the past was the same. Which assumes the trees grew at present rates.Frumious Bandersnatch said:Somehow their 14C content continues to decline on a per layer basis exactly as if they were annual and the layers that overlap with tree rings chronologies have 14C levels that correlate with those chronologies even though both are supposedly forming under very different conditions and they correlate with both 14C, U-Th dating of corals, and data from ice cores.
"Now living plants 'breathe' CO2 indiscriminately (they don't care about isotopes one way or the other), and so (while they are living) they have the same ratio of carbon 14 in them as the atmosphere. Animals, including humans, consume plants a lot (and animals that consume plants), and thus they also tend to have the same ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 atoms. This equilibrium persists in living organisms as long as they continue living, but when they die, they no longer 'breathe' or eat new 14 carbon isotopes "This doesn't make even the least bit of sense.
I was suggesting that the carbon got there some other way than decay. I was asking you to prove that it used to be decay.Are you suggesting there was another form of radioactive decay presplit? I thought there was no decay presplit or maybe a little God directed decay or now maybe whatever you need to try to preserve your consistently inconsistant fantasy.
With a rapid seperation of continents, of course we need to look at each area. My, aren't we evasive here all of a sudden? What? No answers to my innocent seemingly simple questions as to where on the map the stuff you were talking about is piled up so deep? Strange. Could this evasive behaviour be hiding some weak point? I wonder?Of course you want to look at areas individually.
Now, now, you do have a habit of tring to throw sand in the eyes here. That is why I shield my eyes, and look at what it is exactly you are throwing. Tree rings? Piece of cake. coral, and etc? No probs. Now, on to the varve stuff here you seem to be backing off from.When looked at together they falsify your fantasy even more thoroughly. We have data from a lake in Japan, a Lake in Poland, tree ring chronologies, coral couplets and ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic that all correlate and provide a consistent chronology.
Such scrill denial. There were no different laws of physics. There were no laws of physics. Physical only laws are fishbowl laws.Your fantasy of a very different past with different laws of physics 4,500 years ago accounting for the appearance of age in a young earth is totally falsified.
We are talking about the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. How is it that rings that were growing much faster than annually have 14C content that makes them appear to be annual rings and how does that correlate with 14C in lake varves? You need about 40,000 lake varves to have formed rapidly before they started forming annually and about 6,000 extra tree rings in tree ring chronologies and yet last 6,000 varves formed "rapidly" have 14C levels that correlate with the 6,000 tree rings just as if they had all formed annually and they both correlate with dates found for coral couplets. Your have not and can not explain this. As I predicted all you are doing is irrelevant hand waving.dad said:When you say 'continues to decline' that asumes that pre split, the lesser amount of carbon was due to decay as well. Which assumes the past was the same. Which assumes the trees grew at present rates.
But what have we really here? A pattern of less carbon in the trees, as we go futher back into the early life of the tree. (as well as other things). At the split, the growth rates changed radically, in the new conditions, light, air, earth, etc. A tree ring now takes a year to grow. The amount of carbon in the tree at the point of the split was still in a pattern, all that changes is the time it now takes to produce a ring. The pattern that existed pre split then, was similar to what we see now at least as far as the carbon that is less as time goes back. Since the tree pre split had less time to grow, the pattern used to take less time.
Then how would the biological life that formed the lake varves correlate with the tree rings for 6,000 rings and then have 14C levels that continue to decline over the next 34,000 varves in a way that just happens to make both look annual?"Now living plants 'breathe' CO2 indiscriminately (they don't care about isotopes one way or the other), and so (while they are living) they have the same ratio of carbon 14 in them as the atmosphere. Animals, including humans, consume plants a lot (and animals that consume plants), and thus they also tend to have the same ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 atoms. This equilibrium persists in living organisms as long as they continue living, but when they die, they no longer 'breathe' or eat new 14 carbon isotopes "
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae403.cfm
So, now, while things are living, then, in this PO universe, and world, we have the same C14 levels as the atmosphere. In the past, where the world and universe were still merged, but biological life was not, but in a fallen state because of man, why would living things have the same C14 balance as the merged world around them???
The carbon 14 didn't "get there" by decay. It got there when it was absorbed by the atmosphere and it has been decaying since in both the tree rings, varves and couplets just as expected. It has been decaying for up to 11,000 years in the oldest tree rings, 11,000 years in the 11,000 year old varves and 45,000 years in the oldest varves. A neat package that totally falsifies your nonsense.I was suggesting that the carbon got there some other way than decay. I was asking you to prove that it used to be decay.
The lakes varves were not disturbed by the rapid movement of continents because that only occurs in your fantasy. The varves in several lakes show no evidence of disturbance by the massive earthquakes that would be associated with rapid continent movement. In fact, they just provide more evidence against the rapid movement of continents, as if more were needed.With a rapid seperation of continents, of course we need to look at each area. My, aren't we evasive here all of a sudden? What? No answers to my innocent seemingly simple questions as to where on the map the stuff you were talking about is piled up so deep? Strange. Could this evasive behaviour be hiding some weak point? I wonder?
No problem? You have no explanation for the correlations discussed here. Merely stating "piece of cake" doesn't cut it.Now, now, you do have a habit of tring to throw sand in the eyes here. That is why I shield my eyes, and look at what it is exactly you are throwing. Tree rings? Piece of cake. coral, and etc? No probs. Now, on to the varve stuff here you seem to be backing off from.
In other words you have no way to explain away this falsification of your nonsense.Such scrill denial. There were no different laws of physics. There were no laws of physics. Physical only laws are fishbowl laws.
Because of the different process in the past, the seamless split, and the new process now. As we shall flesh out more in this post.Frumious Bandersnatch said:We are talking about the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. How is it that rings that were growing much faster than annually have 14C content that makes them appear to be annual rings and how does that correlate with 14C in lake varves?
Calm down, with the frantic hand waving and prophesies here. Your baby challenge sends no chill up my back.You need about 40,000 lake varves to have formed rapidly before they started forming annually and about 6,000 extra tree rings in tree ring chronologies and yet last 6,000 varves formed "rapidly" have 14C levels that correlate with the 6,000 tree rings just as if they had all formed annually and they both correlate with dates found for coral couplets. Your have not and can not explain this.
Again, the carbin didn't get there the same way in the past, there is your error.Then how would the biological life that formed the lake varves correlate with the tree rings for 6,000 rings and then have 14C levels that continue to decline over the next 34,000 varves in a way that just happens to make both look annual?
The carbon 14 didn't "get there" by decay. It got there when it was absorbed by the atmosphere
Bingo, right here is where you crash, and your theory fades into they mystic. It NOW gets there from the atmosphere, it doesn't look like that is what used to happen.
Look at the sun here, right away, we had different light altogether. Strike one.
Next, cosmic radiation, a PO phenomena, I would think, like decay is. Strike two.
Next, the atomic structure was different. With the addition of the spiritual, the atomic level changes were so different, looking at present ones can't help you. So, we cannot say, even, that the same atomic reaction happened. Certainly not in the atmosphere, as is now a part of the carbon process. Strike three.
Next, we now have plants absorb carbon through the present photosynthesis process. Not so then!!!!! There was no present photosythesis process, as the light was different. What the trees incorporated, and produced as a result was just not the same. Game, you are out!
I cannot lay out the precise past formula for you. I can say it was different. I might even hazard a guess or two as to how. But the basic thing is again, that different past. You are left with a present, and how it now works, you cannot take back there by any proofs or evidences. Too bad for you. You would need that to have any case at all!
Was the process somewhat reversed, where the N14 gave us the C14? I don't know. But the trees did grow at a much much faster rate. This alone is evidence the present sucking carbon from the atmosphere just was not the process at the time, I would say!! The evidence mounts!
Here, you are right, after the split, the decay was happening, as it now happens. The pattern looks as if it was always decaying IF we assume a same past. NOT if we assume a different past! So, all you have been doing is assuming.and it has been decaying since in both the tree rings, varves and couplets just as expected.
Another mystery of the universe solved!!! Thanks for your bit there. I try and put your education to some good use.
The rapid movement only did not occur in your fantasy. As for disturbed varves, I don't need them. Look at the map, I think there is more than enough violence evidenced there, whether or not the varves were disturbed.The lakes varves were not disturbed by the rapid movement of continents because that only occurs in your fantasy.
You make predictions about rapid seperation in a merged world now??! No, I am sorry, your predictions are present based ideas you try to mentally transfer to a different past. With no gravity as we know it, the friction you envision is not at the same level at all.The varves in several lakes show no evidence of disturbance by the massive earthquakes that would be associated with rapid continent movement.
I just gave them, well cut.No problem? You have no explanation for the correlations discussed here. Merely stating "piece of cake" doesn't cut it.
dad said:A seamless split so there can never be any evidence for your myth. How convienent for you.Because of the different process in the past, the seamless split, and the new process now. As we shall flesh out more in this post.
We can all see that you are the one doing frantic hand waving just as I predicted you would.Calm down, with the frantic hand waving and prophesies here. Your baby challenge sends no chill up my back.
From FB Then how would the biological life that formed the lake varves correlate with the tree rings for 6,000 rings and then have 14C levels that continue to decline over the next 34,000 varves in a way that just happens to make both look annual?
In other words you have no hope of answering this questionFrom dad. Again, the carbin didn't get there the same way in the past, there is your error.
This bit of frantic hand waving does nothing to explain the correlation between the 14C in tree rings and lake varves going back 11,000 years, the correlation between lake varves and coral couplets where coral couplets are dated by both 14C and U-Th methods and correlation with ice cores from Greenland and Antartica that establish a consistent chronology going back nearly 50,000 years.Bingo, right here is where you crash, and your theory fades into they mystic. It NOW gets there from the atmosphere, it doesn't look like that is what used to happen.
Look at the sun here, right away, we had different light altogether. Strike one.
Next, cosmic radiation, a PO phenomena, I would think, like decay is. Strike two.
Next, the atomic structure was different. With the addition of the spiritual, the atomic level changes were so different, looking at present ones can't help you. So, we cannot say, even, that the same atomic reaction happened. Certainly not in the atmosphere, as is now a part of the carbon process. Strike three.
Next, we now have plants absorb carbon through the present photosynthesis process. Not so then!!!!! There was no present photosythesis process, as the light was different. What the trees incorporated, and produced as a result was just not the same. Game, you are out!
I cannot lay out the precise past formula for you. I can say it was different. I might even hazard a guess or two as to how. But the basic thing is again, that different past. You are left with a present, and how it now works, you cannot take back there by any proofs or evidences. Too bad for you. You would need that to have any case at all!
The evidence mounts that you have no idea what you are talking about, as if we needed more evidence of that.Was the process somewhat reversed, where the N14 gave us the C14? I don't know. But the trees did grow at a much much faster rate. This alone is evidence the present sucking carbon from the atmosphere just was not the process at the time, I would say!! The evidence mounts!
This does nothing to explain the correlation between the tree rings, lake varves, coral couplets (dated by both 14C and U-Th) and ice cores. Nothing.Here, you are right, after the split, the decay was happening, as it now happens. The pattern looks as if it was always decaying IF we assume a same past. NOT if we assume a different past! So, all you have been doing is assuming.
Another mystery of the universe solved!!! Thanks for your bit there. I try and put your education to some good use.
There is evidence of continental drift over hundreds of millions of years but no evidence of rapid continental drift in the varve sequences. The varves do not show evidence of great violence and violence can't explain the correlations in the data. So you have a false "explanation" that wouldn't work even if it weren't false (and it is).The rapid movement only did not occur in your fantasy. As for disturbed varves, I don't need them. Look at the map, I think there is more than enough violence evidenced there, whether or not the varves were disturbed.
You have totally failed to explain the data and the correlations in the data. Nothing in your so-called explanation explains the correlation between the tree rings, lake varves, coral couplets (dated by both 14C and U-Th) and layers in ice cores. Your myth is busted. Get over it.You make predictions about rapid seperation in a merged world now??! No, I am sorry, your predictions are present based ideas you try to mentally transfer to a different past. With no gravity as we know it, the friction you envision is not at the same level at all.
I just gave them, well cut.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
What did you expect, God would muck it up, and hack away in some horrid process? How inconvienient for you.Frumious Bandersnatch said:A seamless split so there can never be any evidence for your myth. How convienent for you.
We can all see that you are the one doing frantic hand waving just as I predicted you would.
If that were the case, you would have a case, in case that one slipped by you. That is not the case.
I think that was just covered. The different process used to work a different way. Before the split, it was not the carbon, it seems, decaying at all. It was a process building carbon. Therefore, as the tree was younger it would have less carbon. More as we neared the split. After the split, the trees became kind of carbon sinks. The end result is that, as we go further back, it looks as if there is less carbon. You assume it was always the same and decayed away. I assume a different process. Both agree with the evidence. Hope you get the general idea here. If I need to tweak it, fine, but basically, with no same past, you really don't have a leg to stand on.From FB Then how would the biological life that formed the lake varves correlate with the tree rings for 6,000 rings and then have 14C levels that continue to decline over the next 34,000 varves in a way that just happens to make both look annual?
In other words you have no hope of answering this question
Of course it does. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the different process was universal, we can expect a similar pattern across the board. You have shown this exists! Great. The evidence mounts.This bit of frantic hand waving does nothing to explain the correlation between the 14C in tree rings and lake varves going back 11,000 years, the correlation between lake varves and coral couplets where coral couplets are dated by both 14C and U-Th methods and correlation with ice cores from Greenland and Antartica that establish a consistent chronology going back nearly 50,000 years.
Coming unglued at the edges? That is a danger of resting on a false premise.The evidence mounts that you have no idea what you are talking about, as if we needed more evidence of that.
As explained, everything.This does nothing to explain the correlation between the tree rings, lake varves, coral couplets (dated by both 14C and U-Th) and ice cores. Nothing.
No, there is evidence the continents moved greatly, as I say. The old age bits is just a desperate, pitiful attempt to explain it as if the bible were not true. Fishbowl physics.There is evidence of continental drift over hundreds of millions of years but no evidence of rapid continental drift in the varve sequences.
No, I haven't really tackled the actual varves yet, so there is no explanation that is true or false. What I pointed out was the great violence of the area that surround the varves, so far. Calm down. Great truths are afoot here.The varves do not show evidence of great violence and violence can't explain the correlations in the data. So you have a false "explanation" that wouldn't work even if it weren't false (and it is).
dad said:In other words God made sure we would be fooled into thinking the lake varves, tree rings, coral couplets and ice layers all indicate no global flood. You are making God out to be a liar again.What did you expect, God would muck it up, and hack away in some horrid process? How inconvienient for you.
What?If that were the case, you would have a case, in case that one slipped by you. That is not the case.
So how is there agreement between the tree rings and the lake varves back to 11,000 year while the total lake varves go back 45,000 or more years? Why do the correlate with not only 14C dating but U-Th dating of corals?I think that was just covered. The different process used to work a different way. Before the split, it was not the carbon, it seems, decaying at all. It was a process building carbon. Therefore, as the tree was younger it would have less carbon. More as we neared the split. After the split, the trees became kind of carbon sinks. The end result is that, as we go further back, it looks as if there is less carbon.Your "assumptions" do not agree with the evidence. They in no way explain the correlations between the lake varves, tree rings, coral couplets (by U-Th dating as well as 14C), and ice layers and why they all look annual.You assume it was always the same and decayed away. I assume a different process. Both agree with the evidence. Hope you get the general idea here. If I need to tweak it, fine, but basically, with no same past, you really don't have a leg to stand on.
This does not explain why 11,000 tree rings look annual, 15,000 coral couplets look annual and 45,000 lake varve look annual. Your hand waving just doesn't work here.Of course it does. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the different process was universal, we can expect a similar pattern across the board.
Yes the evidence mounts that there was no global flood at least in the last 50,000 years. In fact the evidence is conclusive. Your "universal different process" doesn't explain why layers from different systems dated by different methods all give annual correlation wherever they overlap even though the total number of layers is very different.You have shown this exists! Great. The evidence mounts.
The "great truth" is that your myth is busted.No, I haven't really tackled the actual varves yet, so there is no explanation that is true or false. What I pointed out was the great violence of the area that surround the varves, so far. Calm down. Great truths are afoot here.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
No, but if we do not listen to Him, we can get it real messed up.Frumious Bandersnatch said:In other words God made sure we would be fooled into thinking the lake varves, tree rings, coral couplets and ice layers all indicate no global flood. You are making God out to be a liar again.
So how is there agreement between the tree rings and the lake varves back to 11,000 year while the total lake varves go back 45,000 or more years?
Simple. There was no decay in the past. The daughter elements were there already, in cases where old ages are imagined.Why do the correlate with not only 14C dating but U-Th dating of corals?
Don't throw sand. It works like an orchestra playing together the finest of songs. Don't think by saying more than one thing, it helps your lack of a case.Your "assumptions" do not agree with the evidence. They in no way explain the correlations between the lake varves, tree rings, coral couplets (by U-Th dating as well as 14C), and ice layers and why they all look annual.
Why not? I thought I covered that.This does not explain why 11,000 tree rings look annual,
I haven't got to varves yet. Corals, if they used photosynthesis had a different light. If the algae also used a different light, and put down say, a light and dark layer a day, then the 45,000 layers (let me guess, no one ever counted?) become 22 1/2 thousand deposits of varves. 61 years. Just to keep things in perspective.15,000 coral couplets look annual and 45,000 lake varve look annual.
Actually it does.Yes the evidence mounts that there was no global flood at least in the last 50,000 years. In fact the evidence is conclusive. Your "universal different process" doesn't explain why layers from different systems dated by different methods all give annual correlation wherever they overlap even though the total number of layers is very different.
Different light is not something we would associate with radioactive decay dating methods is it? Why obfusicate?Frumious Bandersnatch said:.. How would different light lead to different U-Th dates ...
The wildly wrong dates would be similar, I would think. Just as correct dates would be similar! The reason, of course is that you assume a present past, rather than a past that is different. If there was no decay, and you see present decay, superimposing by imagination that process and the time it takes on a past with no decay, universally, what do you get? A wildly wrong date. What kind of dating club consistantly gets the dates wrong?that agree with the different 14C date in the corals
Now why do tree rings agree with a young earth, and no decay of the past, and everything else? You ask the wrong questions. Is it any wonder the answers are do far from the truth?that just happen to agree with data from tree rings
It is not the number of lakes we see varves in, but how they were formed in the past. For example the fossils in Green River do not show a glacial past, do they? Yet are not many varves now glacially produced? So I think we would have to say, even by your old age same past reckoning, that varves are formed differently now some places. No?lake varves from more than one lake
The different light is your obfuscation but apparently you are now admitting that it can't explain the coral data.dad said:Different light is not something we would associate with radioactive decay dating methods is it? Why obfusicate?
Why would the supposedly wildly wrong dates for 11,000 tree rings agree with the supposedly wildly wrong dates for the most recent 11,000 of the 45,000 varves and why would the wildly wrong dates from both 14C and U-Th dating of 15,000 coral couplets agree with the supposedly wildly wrong dates for the most recent 15,000 of the 45,000 varves? They wouldn't but correct dates would be expected to agree as they do.The wildly wrong dates would be similar, I would think. Just as correct dates would be similar!
The don't. They get consistently correct dates when they date known historical events and dates consistent with each other by very different methods in different systems going back thousands of years before your alleged global flood, something you can't even begin to explain even with your different past nonsense.The reason, of course is that you assume a present past, rather than a past that is different. If there was no decay, and you see present decay, superimposing by imagination that process and the time it takes on a past with no decay, universally, what do you get? A wildly wrong date. What kind of dating club consistantly gets the dates wrong?
An impossibility that doesn't even begin to explain the correlations in the data in any case.I already brought up an interesting possibility for the carbon in the past from ntrogen.
They don't of. They agree with the lake varves, coral couplets and ice layers all demonstrating no global flood in the 45,000 years. You have given no explanation for the correlations at all. You split/merge nonsense can't explain these data.Now why do tree rings agree with a young earth, and no decay of the past, and everything else? You ask the wrong questions. Is it any wonder the answers are do far from the truth?
They are not exactly "glacially" produced they are produce in lakes that freeze over in the winter. The requirement is still water so that the fine material can settle. This can also happen if there is restricted in flow for other reasons but the Green River varves, which you are failing to explain another thread are not the issue here.It is not the number of lakes we see varves in, but how they were formed in the past. For example the fossils in Green River do not show a glacial past, do they? Yet are not many varves now glacially produced?
Perhaps but it is not relevant to the argument. You are just handwaving again. You still have absolutely no explanation for the data. You myth is busted.So I think we would have to say, even by your old age same past reckoning, that varves are formed differently now some places. No?
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?