Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[dad]

The different light is your obfuscation but apparently you are now admitting that it can't explain the coral data.

What does light have to do with radioactive dating? And how does it apply to "the coral data" as you call it? What coral data? How many rings it has, how they are dated, ...etc?

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

Why do the young earth dates agree with each other? No more or less of a coincedence than dates you derive from same past assumptions!

They wouldn't but correct dates would be expected to agree as they do.

As young earth dates do.

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,

Imaginary dates. Same old assumptions to get them. And I do mean old. You cannot date anything in this world right beyond about 4400 years, is that clear? You can talk Egypt, or anything you want.

something you can't even begin to explain even with your different past nonsense.

As I said you have no dates that are right, before the flood!

An impossibility that doesn't even begin to explain the correlations in the data in any case.

Well you had asked why it might look like a pattern of carbon decay, when there was no decay before the split. I thought I gave a pretty good answer. One that would give us a pattern of less carbon in the past.\ the older the tree gets.

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.

Yes, it can. Look at two of the things in this thread it sddressed. Decay. And tree rings.

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.

Well water the bible past has plenty of!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What does light have to do with radioactive dating? And how does it apply to "the coral data" as you call it? What coral data? How many rings it has, how they are dated, ...etc?

It doesn't. Which is part of the reason you can't explain the correlation.

Why do the young earth dates agree with each other? No more or less of a coincedence than dates you derive from same past assumptions!

Young earth dates "don't agree". Some YECs say the earth is only 6,000 years old, others like ICR say about 10,000 years or less that 10,000 years. There are no young earth dates for the last 40,000 of the varves or the last 6,000 of the tree rings so how can you say they agree?

Imaginary dates. Same old assumptions to get them. And I do mean old. You cannot date anything in this world right beyond about 4400 years, is that clear? You can talk Egypt, or anything you want.

Dates back to known events correlate well. Before recorded history dates from different systems using different methods correlate and show a consistent record back thousands of years before your supposed flood..

As I said you have no dates that are right, before the flood!

You mean we don't know the actual date of anything before the flood? That makes no sense at all.

Well you had asked why it might look like a pattern of carbon decay, when there was no decay before the split. I thought I gave a pretty good answer. One that would give us a pattern of less carbon in the past.\ the older the tree gets.

Only you would think it a good answer and it does not explain the correlations between tree rings. lake varves and coral couplets.

Yes, it can. Look at two of the things in this thread it sddressed. Decay. And tree rings.

Addressed but didn't explain.

Well water the bible past has plenty of!

You still have no explaination for the data. Your myth is busted.

The Frumiuos Bandersnatch

 

[dad]

It doesn't. Which is part of the reason you can't explain the correlation.

Why would I want to explain some supposed correlation with former light and decay? The decay was due to atomic level changes.

Young earth dates "don't agree".

Well, true. There is division in the ranks. I guess I mean those that accept something close to Usher's dates.

There are no young earth dates for the last 40,000 of the varves

Of course there are. Less than 6000 years old.

or the last 6,000 of the tree rings so how can you say they agree?

They agree in that the max time is 6000 years. That is a narrow range of time. ( those that allow 10,000 I don't know too much about, guess that is another story, but it sounds like they have a teensy compromise theory going there!)

Dates back to known events correlate well. Before recorded history dates from different systems using different methods correlate and show a consistent record back thousands of years before your supposed flood..

In reality, all dates are wrong, though, despite the elaborate present based reasoning! At least if we go back beyond 4400 years. Egypt, for example.

You mean we don't know the actual date of anything before the flood? That makes no sense at all.

I know there was some 1600 years or whatever before the flood. But all dates are false for ancient history. Either based on unknown scribe's writings. radioactive dating, or etc. Pure, uncut PO speculation, all. I mean that.

Only you would think it a good answer and it does not explain the correlations between tree rings. lake varves and coral couplets.

Actually the principle involved does. The different past. Present bound folks would not think anything a good explanation but present based, and limited dreams of the past. But until and unless they evidence a same past, their opinions are now relegated to insignificance.

Addressed but didn't explain.

Yes, a different past explains it.

As a side note, the no decay in the past agrees well with the nitrogen to carbon explanation, as the atomic level changes are involved in both.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why would I want to explain some supposed correlation with former light and decay? The decay was due to atomic level changes.



Well, true. There is division in the ranks. I guess I mean those that accept something close to Usher's dates.

Of course there are. Less than 6000 years old.

They agree in that the max time is 6000 years. That is a narrow range of time. ( those that allow 10,000 I don't know too much about, guess that is another story, but it sounds like they have a teensy compromise theory going there!)


In reality, all dates are wrong, though, despite the elaborate present based reasoning! At least if we go back beyond 4400 years. Egypt, for example.



I know there was some 1600 years or whatever before the flood. But all dates are false for ancient history. Either based on unknown scribe's writings. radioactive dating, or etc. Pure, uncut PO speculation, all. I mean that.


Actually the principle involved does. The different past. Present bound folks would not think anything a good explanation but present based, and limited dreams of the past. But until and unless they evidence a same past, their opinions are now relegated to insignificance.


Yes, a different past explains it.

As a side note, the no decay in the past agrees well with the nitrogen to carbon explanation, as the atomic level changes are involved in both.

All of the hand waving above merely shows that you still have no explanation for the data. Your myth is busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[dad]

All of the hand waving above merely shows that you still have no explanation for the data. Your myth is busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

You call the different past and future of the bible handwaving, and only offer assumptions and belief that the past was the same.
A better explanation is here. Your myth is busted.

 

[dlamberth]

You call the different past and future of the bible handwaving, and only offer assumptions and belief that the past was the same.

dad...I still have never seen anything from you other than...well I guess basically nothing but hand waving. You have offered no proof of anything and on the back of nothing you try to claim truth. But your fooling no one.

In your response back to me, in an act of "Reverse Revealed Truth" you'll turn this post around, but still, when your done, as always nothing of substance will have been offered by you that shows that your dad-hoc split/merge stuff has any real meaning.

Nothing will have changed because you have offered nothing.

A better explanation is here. Your myth is busted.

science is not based on myth. Your dad-hoc split/merge stuff is.

.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why would I want to explain some supposed correlation with former light and decay? The decay was due to atomic level changes.

So there was decay? What do you mean by atomic level changes? Why would U-Th and 14C atomic level changes agree and seem to correlate annually?

In reality, all dates are wrong, though, despite the elaborate present based reasoning! At least if we go back beyond 4400 years. Egypt, for example.

Since you claim that normal laws of physics were in effect after the split do you accept later dates. For example both historical and 14C dates place the reign of Senwosret II at about 3,900 years ago. Do you accept the dates of the varves and the tree rings after 4,400 BCE?

I know there was some 1600 years or whatever before the flood. But all dates are false for ancient history. Either based on unknown scribe's writings. radioactive dating, or etc. Pure, uncut PO speculation, all. I mean that.

Really? But don't you accept PO as you say after the split. Doesn't this mean that all dates back to 4,400 BCE by 14C are accurate? I don't think it is a coincidence that historical a 14C dates generally agree (with some exceptions for the recycled wood problem) back both to and through your imagined split, just as dates for tree rings, lake varves, ice cores and coral couplets all agree.

Actually the principle involved does. The different past. Present bound folks would not think anything a good explanation but present based, and limited dreams of the past. But until and unless they evidence a same past, their opinions are now relegated to insignificance.

You still have given no explanation for the correlations in the data. None at all.

Yes, a different past explains it.

It does not explain the correlations in dates between different structures dated by different methods. Not even close. For example you have not explained why the earliest 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves correlate apparently annually with the 11,000 tree rings or why the 11,000 tree rings correlate annually with the first 11,000 of the 15,000 coral couplets which are dated by both 14C and U-Th.

As a side note, the no decay in the past agrees well with the nitrogen to carbon explanation, as the atomic level changes are involved in both.

As a side note this is pure nonsense and doesn't explain the data in any case.

You call the different past and future of the bible handwaving,

I call what you are doing hand waving because it is.

and only offer assumptions and belief that the past was the same.

No I offered data showing that the past was the same at least back thousands of years before your supposed flood. Data you can't hand wave away.

A better explanation is here. Your myth is busted.

I wondered how long it would be before you copied that charge. Unfortunately for you I have data which I have discussed and you have only fantasy speculations which you can't even warp sufficiently to explain the data.

Your myth is still busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[dad]

So there was decay? What do you mean by atomic level changes? Why would U-Th and 14C atomic level changes agree and seem to correlate annually?

No. The changes led to the decay. (universally). Why assuming decay in the past yields similar mistakes should be no surprise. Just look at how the results are obtained in the 2 methods you raise.

Since you claim that normal laws of physics were in effect after the split do you accept later dates. For example both historical and 14C dates place the reign of Senwosret II at about 3,900 years ago. Do you accept the dates of the varves and the tree rings after 4,400 BCE?

Yes! Unless for some reason these also could be off, if also based on things before that time, or something like that. I accept fishbowl science in the bowl.

Really? But don't you accept PO as you say after the split. Doesn't this mean that all dates back to 4,400 BCE by 14C are accurate?

That is what I call the present. Anything after the split. I see no reason to take issue with any dates up to the split.

I don't think it is a coincidence that historical a 14C dates generally agree (with some exceptions for the recycled wood problem) back both to and through your imagined split,

You can't go through the time of the split. it is a barrier beyond your abilities. Out of your present scope.

just as dates for tree rings, lake varves, ice cores and coral couplets all agree.

Beyond the split, the agreement is imagined, as POers mentally project the present unto the past.

You still have given no explanation for the correlations in the data. None at all.

Well, yes I have, I touched on trees. You can't just raise several deep side issues, and claim they are not addressed on a thread yet.

For example you have not explained why the earliest 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves correlate apparently annually with the 11,000 tree rings

Well, let's look at this. Where are these 11000 tree rings? Do you have a picture? I thought the oldest tree was less than 5000 tree rings? So, I assume you are talking about nearby dead trees? Or...? Put them on the table here, let's have a look at your claim. Also, show us these 'earliest 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves '? Do you have a picture? Where are they? How exactly are these particular varves dated? What are the dates? It's nitty gritty time.

I wondered how long it would be before you copied that charge. Unfortunately for you I have data which I have discussed and you have only fantasy speculations which you can't even warp sufficiently to explain the data.

We shall see.

 

[rambot]

come now dad...face the fact. It takes a big man to do it but I think you can!

I have never seen you reply in a meaningful manner. It seems that ALL your posts are
1) On the defensive
2) not cited
3) fantasies or dreams that you hope are true. Sure you can EXPLAIN them: But dad, what does that mean?
The author of a great fiction short story would be able to explain sufficient enough information for the story to SEEM true (it wouldn't be true, but it could seem true).
You (not God here..I'm talking about you) have not provided a sufficient explaination to your empty theories. You use a kind of "quip based" logic.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No. The changes led to the decay. (universally). Why assuming decay in the past yields similar mistakes should be no surprise. Just look at how the results are obtained in the 2 methods you raise.


Yes! Unless for some reason these also could be off, if also based on things before that time, or something like that. I accept fishbowl science in the bowl.


That is what I call the present. Anything after the split. I see no reason to take issue with any dates up to the split.


You can't go through the time of the split. it is a barrier beyond your abilities. Out of your present scope.


Beyond the split, the agreement is imagined, as POers mentally project the present unto the past.


Well, yes I have, I touched on trees. You can't just raise several deep side issues, and claim they are not addressed on a thread yet.



Well, let's look at this. Where are these 11000 tree rings? Do you have a picture? I thought the oldest tree was less than 5000 tree rings? So, I assume you are talking about nearby dead trees? Or...? Put them on the table here, let's have a look at your claim. Also, show us these 'earliest 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves '? Do you have a picture? Where are they? How exactly are these particular varves dated? What are the dates? It's nitty gritty time.


We shall see.

I don't have time for detailed reply right now but if you had actually been following the discussion you would know the answers to the questions you raise. What we see is that as usual you are just waving your hands around and desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that all of these phenomona are annual.

Your myth is busted. Get over it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[dad]

I don't have time for detailed reply right now but if you had actually been following the discussion you would know the answers to the questions you raise. What we see is that as usual you are just waving your hands around and desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that all of these phenomona are annual.

Your myth is busted. Get over it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Actually, Frumy, you are wrong. I din't see you get down and deal with issues you throw out faster than the pre split mist deposited varves!
Did anyone microscopically check the layers of ash between which was some varves? If they had, and the ash was the same, and there were a lot of varves between it, that would show they could not be anual. Come on now, quit shooting out the claims, and claiming you really did something huge! In the past, you don't have a pot to PO in! You ought to hang your head in shame.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Actually, Frumy, you are wrong. I din't see you get down and deal with issues you throw out faster than the pre split mist deposited varves!

So the "presplit mist" deposited varves in lake Sugietsu? Talk about desperate hand waving.

Did anyone microscopically check the layers of ash between which was some varves? If they had, and the ash was the same, and there were a lot of varves between it, that would show they could not be anual. Come on now, quit shooting out the claims, and claiming you really did something huge! In the past, you don't have a pot to PO in! You ought to hang your head in shame.

Wrong thread. I haven't talked about ash at all on this thread.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

OK, I'll give some specific answers.

No. The changes led to the decay. (universally). Why assuming decay in the past yields similar mistakes should be no surprise. Just look at how the results are obtained in the 2 methods you raise.

We have 15,000 coral couplets dated by both 14C and U-Th, they look annual and the changes in the 14C agrees with the changes in the first 15,000 of the varves in Lake Suigetsu which also look annual. The changes in 14C in the 11,000 tree rings look annual and agree with the first 11,000 coral couplets and 11,000 lake varves.

From F.B. Since you claim that normal laws of physics were in effect after the split do you accept later dates. For example both historical and 14C dates place the reign of Senwosret II at about 3,900 years ago. Do you accept the dates of the varves and the tree rings after 4,400 BCE?

Yes! Unless for some reason these also could be off, if also based on things before that time, or something like that. I accept fishbowl science in the bowl.

That is what I call the present. Anything after the split. I see no reason to take issue with any dates up to the split.

So that means that you have to cram about all the varves after number 4,400 ie about 40,000 varves into the 100 post flood presplit years just as I said. So you need to explain how more than 300 varves to form each year and look annual by 14C while about 66 tree rings form each year that also look annual by 14C and their cellular structure and about 90 coral couplets form each "post-flood/presplit" year that look annual by both 14C and U-Th dating. You have given no explanation for this. Even your warped fantasy can't really explain it.

You can't go through the time of the split. it is a barrier beyond your abilities. Out of your present scope.

It is your "last Thursday" but 4,400 years ago.

Beyond the split, the agreement is imagined, as POers mentally project the present unto the past.

The agreement in the data is NOT imagined. The data agree. Your attempts to hand wave away the agreement have failed.

Well, yes I have, I touched on trees. You can't just raise several deep side issues, and claim they are not addressed on a thread yet.

Well, let's look at this. Where are these 11000 tree rings? Do you have a picture? I thought the oldest tree was less than 5000 tree rings? So, I assume you are talking about nearby dead trees? Or...? Put them on the table here, let's have a look at your claim. Also, show us these 'earliest 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves '? Do you have a picture? Where are they? How exactly are these particular varves dated? What are the dates? It's nitty gritty time.

I am sure you know how dendrochonolgy works. Did you actually look at the links that have been provided. Here is a picture of the varves from Glenn's page on the subject.

The paper on the subject by H. Kitagawa, J. van der Plicht has been linked before. It is Here.

This sequence of annually laminated sediments not only forms a unique continuous palaeoenvironmental record after the last interglacial but also permits us to reconstruct a complete 14C calibration extending back to at least 45 ka BP, and probably even more by means of combined isotope enrichment and AMS 14C dating1. We have performed AMS 14C measurements on more than 250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments from lake Suigetsu.
...
In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2.

Figure PE-5. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (<45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan). Ä with 1-p bars = Lake Suigetsu, Ä, ~ and O correspond to U-series based 14C calibration on corals.

I found this table of dates obtained for the termination of the period of climate changed called the Younger Dryas on a site called Accuracy in Genesis though it is taken from a scientific paper.


We see the excellent agreement between Dendrochronology, Lake Varve counting and ice core data.

We shall see.

So far we have seen that you have no explanation for the correlations in the data.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[dad]

OK, I'll give some specific answers.

We have 15,000 coral couplets dated by both 14C and U-Th,

The foundation assumptions that are wrong, not surprisingly yield similar wrong results! If we look at it like there was no decay pre split, we get nice similar young results.

they look annual and the changes in the 14C agrees with the changes in the first 15,000 of the varves in Lake Suigetsu which also look annual.

But old age agreement with it's little wrong self is nowhere. Look at the foundation of the house, not the color it is painted, and decorations. Each thing you raise is a topic in itself, and how the dating methods work.
AS an example I already touched on carbon patterns in trees, and why the old age explanation is pure assumptions.

The changes in 14C in the 11,000 tree rings look annual and agree with the first 11,000 coral couplets and 11,000 lake varves.

Universally different fabric of the universe in the past, means that all was affected. As the trees were read wrong, so all is read wrong by old agers. So touting similarities doesn't make it right.

So that means that you have to cram about all the varves after number 4,400 ie about 40,000 varves into the 100 post flood presplit years just as I said.

?? Why is it that 40000 varves here had to happen after the flood????? Where does this come from?

The agreement in the data is NOT imagined.

Oh yes it is, not in agreeing with it's little self, but the reality of the past. See, you need to show there was decay universally if you want to claim there was, and used decay as a clock. You need to show that the trees and other life did not have a different light, and growth rate, and that carbon prodction, or intake was anything like the same in the former process. Etc. All you do so far is say that if it was the same the dates from different processes roughly agree. That is all. So what? If it was different the dates from different processes agree. !! And not just roughly either.

The paper on the subject by H. Kitagawa, J. van der Plicht has been linked before. It is Here.

From that..

..."From the laminated sediments we selected terrestrial-origin macrofossils such as leaves, branches and insects for AMS 14C measurements. "
So, life pre split had less carbon, so we assume it vanished with age? In other words a same growth and bio life as the present is assumed. Great. And this can be proved how?

"varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1)."
So, it is relatively uniform, except that at some point it is almost twice as thick!!

"In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2"
What have we here? Assumptions that we can go to Germany, and the trees there tell us about the Japaneese varves? OK.

"...estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve"
I guess minimizing differences does help, if we are trying to get similarities, even a continent away.
But, nothing here at all that does not assume a same past with no evidence at all. It simply arranges the evidence in a way that yields similar mistakes in dating!


"The combined 14C and varve chronologies from Lake Suigetsu are used to calibrate the 14C time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration"
Oh, my, now we really leave orbit, and start trying to apply this pitiful, baseless PO logic beyond tree ring calibration. OK.

"The detailed record in atmospheric D14C during the deglaciation shows millennium scale fluctuations superimposed on a long-term increasing trend, resulting from a decreasing geomagnetic intensity as reconstructed from geomagnetic records. Abrupt D14C drops correspond to radiocarbon plateaus in the calibration curve."
So, I might have a different idea about abrupt changes. And as far as taking a thousand years, and superimposing it on the far past, I hope you are starting to get where that's at!
No, Frumy, the Emperor has no clothes, the wizard behind the curtain is a shrimp, and PO preaching gets old fast.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The foundation assumptions that are wrong, not surprisingly yield similar wrong results! If we look at it like there was no decay pre split, we get nice similar young results.

If there was no decay presplit all the layers should show the same age no matter how old especially if they are all with 100 years of the same age.

But old age agreement with it's little wrong self is nowhere. Look at the foundation of the house, not the color it is painted, and decorations. Each thing you raise is a topic in itself, and how the dating methods work.

The agreement is between different systems dated by different methods including counting rings and varves.

AS an example I already touched on carbon patterns in trees, and why the old age explanation is pure assumptions.

You can't explain why different dating methods and dating on trees, varves and coral couplets agrees with each being annual even though there are different numbers and an additional dating system (U-Th) is used for the corals. You haven't come close.

Universally different fabric of the universe in the past, means that all was affected. As the trees were read wrong, so all is read wrong by old agers. So touting similarities doesn't make it right.

And the wrong differences "just happen" to yeild correlations you can't explain and just happen to make it look like the varves, tree rings and coral couplets were formed annually for many thousands of years and just happen to conveniently cover up any evidence of the global flood or young earth or your presplit fantasy world. How convenient for you. Too bad your claim just happens to fall flat.

?? Why is it that 40000 varves here had to happen after the flood????? Where does this come from?

Do you think these delicate varves in the lake could have survived a worldwide flood? Did the worldwide flood just happen to miss Lake Sugietsu?

Oh yes it is, not in agreeing with it's little self, but the reality of the past. See, you need to show there was decay universally if you want to claim there was, and used decay as a clock. You need to show that the trees and other life did not have a different light, and growth rate, and that carbon prodction, or intake was anything like the same in the former process. Etc. All you do so far is say that if it was the same the dates from different processes roughly agree. That is all. So what? If it was different the dates from different processes agree. !! And not just roughly either.

Except that first 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves agree with the tree rings etc. a fact you have not explained and you haven't explain how the U-Th coral dates just happen to agree with the varves and everything just happens to look annual.

From that..

..."From the laminated sediments we selected terrestrial-origin macrofossils such as leaves, branches and insects for AMS 14C measurements. "
So, life pre split had less carbon, so we assume it vanished with age? In other words a same growth and bio life as the present is assumed. Great. And this can be proved how?

"varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1)."
So, it is relatively uniform, except that at some point it is almost twice as thick!!

"In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2"
What have we here? Assumptions that we can go to Germany, and the trees there tell us about the Japaneese varves? OK.

"...estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve"
I guess minimizing differences does help, if we are trying to get similarities, even a continent away.
But, nothing here at all that does not assume a same past with no evidence at all. It simply arranges the evidence in a way that yields similar mistakes in dating!


"The combined 14C and varve chronologies from Lake Suigetsu are used to calibrate the 14C time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration"

Oh, my, now we really leave orbit, and start trying to apply this pitiful, baseless PO logic beyond tree ring calibration. OK.

That was the point of the work. To provide calibration beyond that provided by tree rings. Do you understand science at all? Apparently not.
Here is the part that you can't explain.
In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2. Figure PE-4 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. The features in our data overlapping the tree-ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves.

ailed record in atmospheric D14C during the deglaciation shows millennium scale fluctuations superimposed on a long-term increasing trend, resulting from a decreasing geomagnetic intensity as reconstructed from geomagnetic records. Abrupt D14C drops correspond to radiocarbon plateaus in the calibration curve."
So, I might have a different idea about abrupt changes. And as far as taking a thousand years, and superimposing it on the far past, I hope you are starting to get where that's at!

Yes there have been changes in atmosphere 14C levels over the past 50,000 years that slowly fluctuate on a millenial scale. That's why calibration is required. Otherwise 14C dates are too young. Now let's see you actually explain the data for a change.

No, Frumy, the Emperor has no clothes, the wizard behind the curtain is a shrimp, and PO preaching gets old fast.

So all you can do is try to pick at the data around the edges because you can't begin to explain the correlations in the data. Your myth is busted. Get over it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[steen]

I don't know if creationists grasp that the reason why we know where to look for oil and gas is per the knowledge of Evolution and biological/geological events of so many millions of years ago?

 

[dad]

If there was no decay presplit all the layers should show the same age no matter how old especially if they are all with 100 years of the same age.

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.

The agreement is between different systems dated by different methods including counting rings and varves.

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.

...(U-Th) is used for the corals. You haven't come close.

Care to give a sentence or two on precisely how that method works? Why just repeat it as if it had some value?

And the wrong differences "just happen" to yeild correlations

Of course, just as the different past you can't explain yields nice young correlations. So, which past was it? That is the question.

Do you think these delicate varves in the lake could have survived a worldwide flood? Did the worldwide flood just happen to miss Lake Sugietsu?

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?

Except that first 11,000 of the 45,000 lake varves agree with the tree rings etc. a fact you have not explained ..

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?

That was the point of the work. To provide calibration beyond that provided by tree rings.

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.

...estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve.

What does this mean? Toss out 'dates' that don't seem to make a good match?

The features in our data overlapping the tree-ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves.

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.

Yes there have been changes in atmosphere 14C levels over the past 50,000 years that slowly fluctuate on a millenial scale. That's why calibration is required.

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.

Otherwise 14C dates are too young. Now let's see you actually explain the data for a change.

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.

 

[dad]

I don't know if creationists grasp that the reason why we know where to look for oil and gas is per the knowledge of Evolution and biological/geological events of so many millions of years ago?

That is false! You simply note the migration patterns of Eden's creatures, as they showed up in the fossil record at last. Then noticed that some areas were times where oil is found. Then added geological knowledge we have, about old seas, uplifts, etc etc, and have some idea where to drill. The evolution was really creation, and the evolving created creatures moving out and about. The old ages are absolute fantasy.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is false! You simply note the migration patterns of Eden's creatures, as they showed up in the fossil record at last. Then noticed that some areas were times where oil is found. Then added geological knowledge we have, about old seas, uplifts, etc etc, and have some idea where to drill. The evolution was really creation, and the evolving created creatures moving out and about. The old ages are absolute fantasy.

This is off topic here but microfossils are among the most important for oil exploration. The idea that the fossil record of microfossils is the result of migration out from Eden is just plain silly. The idea that the fossil record of sessile benthic organisms (they grow attached to the sea bottom) is the result of "migration from Eden" is silly. Other index fossils are Ammonites. The idea that their fossil record is the result of migration from Eden is silly too. Of course the idea that the fossil record of plants is the result of migration out from Eden is also pretty silly. Then again, I can't think of anything about your presplit fantasy world that isn't silly so I suppose it fits right in.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.