dad said:
There you go with that 100 year thing again. What is that? Decay dating has almost nothing to da with age at all. It simply benchmarks levels of isotopes in the past that were present for the reasons they were then present. Not for present decay reasons.
And the carbon isotope ratios in the tree rings and varves just happens to change for "the reason they were present then" in a way that makes it look like annual decay.
So is mine. So? Not only that, besides mere different little systems, I address the mother of all assumptions of the non existant same past. In so doing, an across the board new way of looking at all systems arises.
Your fantasy is a new way off looking at things all right. So is the idea that everything was done by invisible pixes and both have the same level of scientific support. i.e. None.
Care to give a sentence or two on precisely how that method works? Why just repeat it as if it had some value?
The method works by measuring the amount of 230Th produced by the decay of 238U. It works well for coral because of the difference in solublity between U and Th is about 5 orders of magnitude, so that precipitates from surface water such as carbonates have very low 230Th/238U ratios. After precipitation decay of U to Th can be followed by measuring Th allowing dating of the sample. Look at the OP for a graph comparing U-Th and 14C dates.
Of course, just as the different past you can't explain yields nice young correlations. So, which past was it? That is the question.
The correlations shouldn't be there in a past with no decay and only a short time post-flood to form the varves, coral couplets and tree rings. I suppose one could consider dates back to 11,000-45,000 years pretty young considering the 4.55 billion year age of the earth
.
If I stuck a varve layer a thousand feet thick under Lake Superior for a month, would that wreck the formation of these so called delicate varves? If the varves were already formed, what is a flood going to do to them?
These varves are deposits of clay and organic material on the bottom of a lake. They are not solid rock. The varves in the Green River that we are discussing in the other thread had overburden deposited on them and were lithified before the overburden eroded away. The varves on lake bottoms are not hard.
Consider what you are saying. Varves are forming on a lake bottom by deposition first of more coarse material then finer material. Currently this happens annually. The material is sitting on the bottom of a lake accumlating layers at whatever rate. Now suddenly the fountains of the deep open up, the skies open up with tremendous rain, water rises to cover the entire earth including the lakes with varves accumulating (and there are several of them around the world) The water stay about a year then run off. Then there is "rapid continent movement" causing great violence. Yet somehow through it all the varves, composed essentially of layered mud, are undistrubed. There is no indication of this event anywhere in varves of the many lakes that have been studied including the Lakes in Japan and Poland discussed on this thread. The idea is totally absurd.
OK. But by "agree" here, all you mean is that dating methods based on a same past yield similar dates. A concept only as valid as that fantasy same past. What are you missing here?
I am not missing anything. Even your fantasy past can't actually explain the data presented on this thread as we have seen.
Right, in other words, what they want to do here is go back. Way back. To get from a to unknown past b, however they tread on the path of same past assumptions only, which is a dead end.
Here is the part that you can't explain.
Science can explain the data well without any reference to your fantasy past which can't explain the data as we have seen on this thread.
What does this mean? Toss out 'dates' that don't seem to make a good match?
It is a statistical method used to calculate the 14C calibration curve. Dates are not tossed out.
So, the life that existed, had a carbon pattern. A pattern useless for any distant dates, unless we had a same past. Then, they look at varves, beyond where they were anual deposits, as they now are. Both assumptions yield similar dates, whoopee do.
Except that the first 11,000 of at least 45,000 post flood somehow have the same levels as the 11,000 tree rings that look annual and the U-Th dates of the coral couplets also provide annual agreement. The idea that these correlations came about by chance because of some factor you imagine but can't define that just happens to change isotope levels but is useless for dating is totally absurd.
No, there have not!!! All we can say is there have been changes in 14C levels. Possibly in the atmosphere as well. A same past atributes things to the atmosphere, because that is how it now works. No changes go back past 6000 years ago at creation.
The data go back nearly 50,000 years whether you like it or not.
But that means what? A lot of the carbon that a same past assumption expects is not there!!!! Well, so what, there was no same past!
Get over it.
What we see is that you still have no explanation for the correlations in the data.
The Frumious Bandesnatch
Added in Edit: According to Glenn Morton's
page there are actually
100,000 varves in Lake Sugietsu, only 45,000 were carbon dated. This means that actually the first 11,000 of 100,000 varves correlate with tree rings etc.