Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Before the first pyramid. Focus. Balderdash.

No, your claimed flood date is well after the building of the first pyramides.

I am not sure why you recite old age religion here. Just keep it, because, until you provide a same state past, it is intellectual garbage. Repetition without support is mere rudeness. It is easy to conceive that that area didn't even move much, from the map of the continental separation I linked. You didn't even address that. No they aren't, only same past assumed growth, in a same past state imaginary data. Religion. Not at all, I simply notice every attempt at confusing the issue you make is pathetically weak.

I notice all you can do is bluster.

So it is best to simply attack the one in the thread here. Did they write that they saw all the varves, and they are perfectly uniform all the way to the top?

Not all the way to the top, only after the 1662 Kanbum earthquake.

Or are you just reading stuff in there!? Precisely correlated, eh? Meaning what? They are all the same,

Meaning that the same varves were seen in high resolution digitial photographs from each core with no disturbences in the varve sequences.

or there are some twigs along the way, that the carbon was used to correlate, or ?? In other words, present state assumptions. Gee, what a surprise. All stand. So, what about the tree rings from 44-4700 deep you made claims about> Ready to admit you made them in ignorance???

Rings from 44-4700 deep? What are you talking about? IIRC there are many overalpping tree ring chronologies that go back to such a short time in the past. There are also other lakes that have varves going back through that period. I have a paper on a Finnish Lake that shows pictures of several different varve sequences and a plot of the thickness of the varves going from the present back 10,000 years. There is no disturbance seen in the region of your imagined global flood. I am past my limit of images so I will have to delete some before I post it.

Or are you ready to pony up the goods, and show us the actual rings?? Same with varves in the area in question here??? Put up, or, fess up. Ready to admit that Egypt dates are pure same past decay religion?

I will address this issue again later as I said.

How about the discussion of how the varves were dated, why have you avoided that?

I discussed it. The varves are counted from high resolution digital photos. 14C was determined by accelerator mass spectrometry.

And, the map of the area the lake is in, seems to be possibly unmoved by the separation?

The separation of the continents you are talking about occurred millions of years before the lake even formed so naturally the lake was not disturbed by it.

Is your strange silence a tacit admission of this??? Mo need to disturb it, if it was post flood, now is there!!!

As I explained here and on previous posts the answer is simple, there was no global flood and continent separation was long before the lake formed.

Maybe you better have a rest, and go do some homework here.

What we see from this post is that you still have no explanation for the correlations in the data. All you can do is blather, bluster and wave. Classic dad.

 

[dad]

No, your claimed flood date is well after the building of the first pyramides.

. According to your religion only, of same past belief based wand waving. Nothing to do with evidence. Nothing I have seen makes Egypt pre flood at all, as I say, your dates are wrong wrong wrong. Any way you shake it. Sothic calendar, unknown scribblers, writing stuff on the back of parchments, or anything we have at all, nothing I have seen can begin to justify your religious dating.

I notice all you can do is bluster. Not all the way to the top, only after the 1662 Kanbum earthquake.

So, in other words, what? Starting 1662 layers down from the top?

Meaning that the same varves were seen in high resolution digitial photographs from each core with no disturbences in the varve sequences.
Rings from 44-4700 deep? What are you talking about? IIRC there are many overalpping tree ring chronologies that go back to such a short time in the past.

I don't want many. I asked for the varves that deep down. Around the time of the flood. If you claim it is all uniform, with no little differences, let's see it. Same twith tree rings 44 -4700 deep! Forget the talk, if you claim no difference, as you did, let's see it. Not wand waving, imaginary mental fishbowl based contortions, that you think, agree within themselves, with your belief system.

There are also other lakes that have varves going back through that period. I have a paper on a Finnish Lake that shows pictures of several different varve sequences and a plot of the thickness of the varves going from the present back 10,000 years. There is no disturbance seen in the region of your imagined global flood. I am past my limit of images so I will have to delete some before I post it.

.. If this is a tacit admission you lost all ability to support the actual thread here, and Lake you brought up, and cannot back up your own claims, showing us the goods, fine. As the thread fades out, at least try to redeem yourself by showing the 44 -4700 layer deep area in this other lake, and how it is all wonderfully uniform. Just show us something, cut the bluster.

I discussed it. The varves are counted from high resolution digital photos. 14C was determined by accelerator mass spectrometry. The separation of the continents you are talking about occurred millions of years before the lake even formed so naturally the lake was not disturbed by it.

Only if your religion was true, and belief system, which cannot be in any way supported by science,. because science cannot deal in a different, or same state past, they must resort to assuming one. Here you seem to be dealing in radioactive decay dating again. In other words, a pattern of isotopes. You can't have the pattern, sorry, it is applicable only after one knows the state of the universe at the time. You don't/ You are simply imposing your religion, and second guessing the unknown.

As I explained here and on previous posts the answer is simple, there was no global flood and continent separation was long before the lake formed.

And I raised the question whether it was a post flood formation. I also showed scientific evidence of the continental separation map, and where this area was on it! How can you justify your claims that it should have been busted to smithereens by the continental move now?? Any more questions, lurkers?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

. According to your religion only, of same past belief based wand waving. Nothing to do with evidence. Nothing I have seen makes Egypt pre flood at all, as I say, your dates are wrong wrong wrong. Any way you shake it. Sothic calendar, unknown scribblers, writing stuff on the back of parchments, or anything we have at all, nothing I have seen can begin to justify your religious dating.

There is nothing religious about the accepted chronology of Egypt except that certain scholars try to manipulate them to justify the Exodus account. You only reject the data because of your religious beliefs. I have said I will address this again later. It is off topic here.

So, in other words, what? Starting 1662 layers down from the top? I don't want many. I asked for the varves that deep down. Around the time of the flood.

I can't show you pictures of varves from around the time of a flood that didn't happen. The authors state the varve counts of all three cores agree and count 6,995 varves between the 1662 Kanbun Earthquake and a layer contianing Ash from the Kikai-Akahoya tephra in each of the tree cores. They do not mention or indicate anything special in the range you claim for the flood.

If you claim it is all uniform, with no little differences, let's see it. Same twith tree rings 44 -4700 deep! Forget the talk, if you claim no difference, as you did, let's see it.

The authors did not bother to put an exact picture of an uninteresting area in any of the cores. Why would they? There are many lakes around the world that have varved sequences going back through this time period. I presented data from two German Lakes showing a straight line correlation between 14C data from tree rings and varves going smoothly back from about 900 to 11,000 years ago on This Post. I have two papers on a continous varve sequence going back about 10,000 years from Lake Nuatajarvi in Finland. One show records of pollen deposition through the entire period and there is nothing of special interest seen between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago. Another gives a continous record of varve thickness over the entire 10,000 year range. I'll post them later after I remove some images from my other posts so I can do it.

Not wand waving, imaginary mental fishbowl based contortions, that you think, agree within themselves, with your belief system. .. If this is a tacit admission you lost all ability to support the actual thread here, and Lake you brought up, and cannot back up your own claims, showing us the goods, fine.

You have been totally unable to explain the correlations in the data so all you can do is and bluster as usual.

As the thread fades out, at least try to redeem yourself by showing the 44 -4700 layer deep area in this other lake, and how it is all wonderfully uniform. Just show us something, cut the bluster.

I am not blustering. I am presenting data that you can't explain. Why am I not surprised that you apparently can't tell the difference?

Only if your religion was true, and belief system, which cannot be in any way supported by science,. because science cannot deal in a different, or same state past, they must resort to assuming one. Here you seem to be dealing in radioactive decay dating again. In other words, a pattern of isotopes. You can't have the pattern, sorry, it is applicable only after one knows the state of the universe at the time. You don't/ You are simply imposing your religion, and second guessing the unknown.

This is simply more incoherent babble and handwaving with no attempt to explain the correlations between the 14C data from the tree rings and lake varves from several different lakes and U-Th dating of coral couplets and all the other data you failed to fit to you different past myth on this thread.

And I raised the question whether it was a post flood formation.

So if the 45,000 varves that have been dated formed in the 4,500 years since the flood and the 11,000 tree rings from the overlapping tree ring chronologies formed in the 4,500 years since the flood, how is it that there is such good correlation between the amount of 14C in the first 11,000 of the 45,000 varves and the 11,000 tree rings? You have come up with magic ad-hoc mechanisms which you think explain the formation of 11,000 tree rings and 45,000 varves but you have never even been able to come up with an ad-hoc explaination of the correlation or with the correlations between tree rings, varves, coral couplets and ice core data that give a consistent date for the Younger Dryas.

I also showed scientific evidence of the continental separation map, and where this area was on it!

The scientific evidence says that Japanese island broke from the mainland when the sea of Japan was formed about 15 million years ago long before the varves in Lake Suigetsu formed. There are also varved sequences in many other lakes around the world that should have been wiped out by a global flood or totally disrupted by the magic, rapid continent separation you are claiming.

How can you justify your claims that it should have been busted to smithereens by the continental move now??

Didn't you originally try to claim that the varve count was somhow increased by all the events surrounding the "rapid continent move? Are you now claiming that a lake on the edge of the main Japanese Island, near the Sea of Japan would not have been affected by the formation of the sea of Japan? It is your myth that is busted to smithereens by the data.

Any more questions, lurkers?

If any lurkers are bothering to read all this stuff I am sure they can see who has data and who can only blather, bluster and .

 

[Quantic]

Well, Frumious, this lurker admires your gumption to stick with this thread. Dad's pre-split (oops, should be "adult" not "split") understanding is hard to tolerate. Good work!

 

[Danyc]

Well, Frumious, this lurker admires your gumption to stick with this thread. Dad's pre-split (oops, should be "adult" not "split") understanding is hard to tolerate. Good work!

QFT

Frumious continuously amazes me. I would never be able to hold out so long in a conversation so....pathetic.

 

[dad]

There is nothing religious about the accepted chronology of Egypt except that certain scholars try to manipulate them to justify the Exodus account.

Oh yes there sure is, when it all rests on faith based assumptions about the unknown.

You only reject the data because of your religious beliefs. I have said I will address this again later. It is off topic here.

I only caught onto them, because my beliefs differ from theirs, and I have authoritative documentation that actually reaches into the past.

I can't show you pictures of varves from around the time of a flood that didn't happen.

Then you can't claim stuff about them, as you have been doing, being ignorant, as I suspected.

The authors state the varve counts of all three cores agree and count 6,995 varves between the 1662 Kanbun Earthquake and a layer contianing Ash from the Kikai-Akahoya tephra in each of the tree cores. They do not mention or indicate anything special in the range you claim for the flood.

They do not mention the time range of the flood. Great. Then they do not address the core issue, and the data is not relevant.

The authors did not bother to put an exact picture of an uninteresting area in any of the cores.

Then, their stuff is uninteresting. And useless in any interesting debate about God's truth, and the flood.

Why would they? There are many lakes around the world that have varved sequences going back through this time period.

Making claims again, after failing to back the ones on this topic. Pathetic.

I presented data from two German Lakes showing a straight line correlation between 14C data from tree rings and varves going smoothly back from about 900 to 11,000 years ago on

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oh yes there sure is, when it all rests on faith based assumptions about the unknown. I only caught onto them, because my beliefs differ from theirs, and I have authoritative documentation that actually reaches into the past. Then you can't claim stuff about them, as you have been doing, being ignorant, as I suspected. They do not mention the time range of the flood.

Since there was no flood how could they mention the "time range of the flood'?

Great. Then they do not address the core issue, and the data is not relevant.

Kitagawa and van der Plicht state that varves from 3 cores precisely correlate after the 1662 Earthquake to a layer containing volcanic ash 6995 varves further down. Their schematic shows no disturbances in the varved sequence between over this range. The tree ring and varve 14C data show a straight line correlation from recent times right through the time you claim for the flood. Look at the OP again. These are the data you can't even begin to explain. There are also data from other lakes that correlate through this range including the two German lakes I presented earlier and Lake of the Clouds in Minnesota. Most of the interest in recent papers is for data after 8,000 BC because of interest in extending calibration curves and in climate changes in that time period. The data from several different lakes could not correlate smoothly back from recent times to before 8,000 BC if there had been big disturbances in varve structures around 4,500 BC. There are several papers that show smooth correlations through this time and none that mention the massive disruption in varves that should have been caused by a global flood that covered all the mountains or the disruptions that should have come if a Pangea had not broken up until after this supposed global flood.

Then, their stuff is uninteresting. And useless in any interesting debate about God's truth, and the flood. Making claims again, after failing to back the ones on this topic. Pathetic.

So you fail to explain the data again and can only bluster and .

I see you ignored This Post where I presented data from two German Lakes showing a straight line correlation between 14C data from tree rings and varves going smoothly back from about 900 to 11,000 years ago right through the time of your supposed flood.

 

[dad]

Since there was no flood how could they mention the "time range of the flood'?

Well, since there was a flood, and we know about when, why not mention that time? I have asked you for this lake's records, around that time. You already made claims that there was no differences. What's wrong?? Lurkers take note.

Kitagawa and van der Plicht state that varves from 3 cores precisely correlate after the 1662 Earthquake to a layer containing volcanic ash 6995 varves further down. Their schematic shows no disturbances in the varved sequence between over this range.

So, is this a national secret?? Could this info fall into the hands of terrorists, or something? Why not simply show us, rather than talking the talk?? Let's see those layers 44-4700 deep, and check out your claims, that there is no differences. Why squirm? If you can't produce the goods, lose the claims, be honest.

The tree ring and varve 14C data show a straight line correlation from recent times right through the time you claim for the flood. Look at the OP again. These are the data you can't even begin to explain. There are also data from other lakes that correlate through this range including the two German lakes I presented earlier and Lake of the Clouds in Minnesota.

Good grief. Talk about blowing smoke. 'Lake of the clouds'? Try focusing on your thread here, it is over in Japan, by the way. 14C levels in pre present state universe life, really can't be looked at, as you insist on looking at them, in a present state light. All we can say, is that there is a pattern of carbon levels, of C14, that is now produced by decay. I know that. trying to call that dates is religion. Bad religion.

Most of the interest in recent papers is for data after 8,000 BC because of interest in extending calibration curves and in climate changes in that time period.

The climate was different pre split, pre flood, yes. As for the silly environmental religionists trying to flog their agenda, using same state past hand waving, - their clueless curves and pointless prophesies are worthless.

The data from several different lakes could not correlate smoothly back from recent times to before 8,000 BC if there had been big disturbances in varve structures around 4,500 BC.

The layers deep into the different past are not an issue. Are you now abandoning your claim that there were no differences around the split or flood? I like to check my work, so if there either were, or were not any differences, I would prefer to honestly look at the data. So far, you have no data on that, or to support your claims.

There are several papers that show smooth correlations through this time and none that mention the massive disruption in varves that should have been caused by a global flood that covered all the mountains or the disruptions that should have come if a Pangea had not broken up until after this supposed global flood.

Massive?? Man simply found he started to live a lot shorter, and maybe that light was somewhat different, and gravity, and a few things. Trees kept growing, and dirt was still here, and water, and layers kept forming, the best way they knew how, in this state.

I see you ignored This Post where I presented data from two German Lakes showing a straight line correlation between 14C data from tree rings and varves going smoothly back from about 900 to 11,000 years ago right through the time of your supposed flood.

In English, then, why would anyone need to adopt your belief system take on the varves in Germany? Again, show us the varves and rings from around the flood time. Not imaginary graphs, based on purest religion. Anyone can do that.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, since there was a flood, and we know about when, why not mention that time? I have asked you for this lake's records, around that time. You already made claims that there was no differences. What's wrong?? Lurkers take note.;

Lurkers take note. Dad is desperately grasping at a straw here. The authors took high resolution digital images of three cores and counted them back to more the 7,000 years ago and found a precise correlation. They took measurements of 14C at 250 varve counts. The showed a correlation between 14C in varves and 14C in tree rings back to 11,000 years, and correlations with coral couplets back to 15,000 years. There is no indication anywhere in their work of disruption from a "global flood". If the layers were disturbed by such a flood at varve counts between 4,400 and 5,000 there is no possible way the correlation data from before this supposed disruption and the data after would fall on the same straight line. In fact there is no possible way to explain these data with dad's "different past" with no decay before the split. That is why he is trying so desperately to distract attention by asking for pictures the authors had no reason to provide.

So, is this a national secret?? Could this info fall into the hands of terrorists, or something?

Because the authors didn't publish pictures of an area of no special interest. They are not interested in creatationist fantasies about a global flood.

Why not simply show us, rather than talking the talk?? Let's see those layers 44-4700 deep, and check out your claims, that there is no differences. Why squirm?

I am not squirming. I am presenting data that you can't explain. You are the one who is squirming as everyone can see.

If you can't produce the goods, lose the claims, be honest. Good grief. Talk about blowing smoke. 'Lake of the clouds'? Try focusing on your thread here, it is over in Japan, by the way.

I guess you hope that by focusing on one lake you can try to dodge that fact that many lakes around the world have annual varves that extend smoothly back through the time of you supposed flood with no indication that such a flood ever occurred.

14C levels in pre present state universe life, really can't be looked at, as you insist on looking at them, in a present state light. All we can say, is that there is a pattern of carbon levels, of C14, that is now produced by decay. I know that. trying to call that dates is religion. Bad religion. The climate was different pre split, pre flood, yes. As for the silly environmental religionists trying to flog their agenda, using same state past hand waving, - their clueless curves and pointless prophesies are worthless.

This is just more dad-hoc babble and bluster that explains nothing.

The layers deep into the different past are not an issue.

So are you again trying to claim that the varves were deposited before the flood and that a flood that burst from the fountains of the deep and covered all the mountains didn't disturb soft sediments in the bottom of a lake that is near sea level? There seems to be no limit to the absurdity of your desperate and failed attempts to dodge this falsification of your myth.

Are you now abandoning your claim that there were no differences around the split or flood?

There was no split or flood and nothing in any of the data from several different lakes, tree ring chronologies, coral couplets, ice cores or sea floor sediments gives the slightest bit of evidence of anything special happening about the time that you claim that there was.

I like to check my work, so if there either were, or were not any differences, I would prefer to honestly look at the data.

The data are presented in several different correlation graphs. Your attempts to dodge the fact that you can't explain them with your different past myth have been anything but honest.

So far, you have no data on that, or to support your claims. Massive?? Man simply found he started to live a lot shorter, and maybe that light was somewhat different, and gravity, and a few things. Trees kept growing, and dirt was still here, and water, and layers kept forming, the best way they knew how, in this state.

This is simply more dad-hoc babble and hand waving that does not explain the correlations presented.

In English, then, why would anyone need to adopt your belief system take on the varves in Germany?

The correlation between 14C in annual varves and tree rings goes smoothly through the period you claim the flood occurred and show not the slightest evidence of it. The data also correlate with the data from the varves in Lake Suigetsu and Lake Gosciaz in Poland, varves from the Cariaco basin and with coral couplet data. None of these data sets show the least bit of evidence of any global flood or "split"

Again, show us the varves and rings from around the flood time. Not imaginary graphs, based on purest religion. Anyone can do that.

Again, there was no flood and there is nothing imaginary about the graphs. The problem you have is that even your imagination can't come up with a way to explain the correlations in the data using your failed different past mythology.

 

[dad]

Lurkers take note. Dad is desperately grasping at a straw here. The authors took high resolution digital images of three cores and counted them back to more the 7,000 years ago and found a precise correlation.

Does a 'precise correlation' include a picture of the actual varves YOU claim are not different anywhere in the disputed zone? If THEY made that claim, I might ask them. So if you want them to bail you out, they better have the goods. Looking at carbon levels in twigs and leaves, in a deposit that may be after the flood, and reflecting the differences of the times, cannot be magically morphed into today's realities, and levels, just by hand waving up an imaginary line, based on assuming it could.

They took measurements of 14C at 250 varve counts. The showed a correlation between 14C in varves and 14C in tree rings back to 11,000 years, and correlations with coral couplets back to 15,000 years. There is no indication anywhere in their work of disruption from a "global flood". If the layers were disturbed by such a flood at varve counts between 4,400 and 5,000 there is no possible way the correlation data from before this supposed disruption and the data after would fall on the same straight line.

So, the carbon in the varves was deposited, in a way that left a pattern. No surprise there. If the deposit was post flood, then all we are looking at is about a century for most of this anyhow! Then, in the many centuries after this present state came to be, and it's deposition rates, carbon levels in the current life processes, etc.. the top side varves may have been deposited. Therefore, the slow yearly rate of deposit applies for the last several thousand years. But, in the post flood century before that started, most of the 40,000 layers would have been layed down! Therefore a pattern such as carbon levels, or similar looking sized layers is nothing strange.

In fact there is no possible way to explain these data with dad's "different past" with no decay before the split. That is why he is trying so desperately to distract attention by asking for pictures the authors had no reason to provide.

Well, that leaves you not knowing now, doesn't it!! Far as I know, then, there could be a hiccup somewhere in the flood/split varve zone, and tree rings also.

Because the authors didn't publish pictures of an area of no special interest. They are not interested in creatationist fantasies about a global flood.

I am not squirming. I am presenting data that you can't explain. You are the one who is squirming as everyone can see.

Well, the data here is that you have no data we can see at all, just empty religious claims. We do not know about whether the tree rings and verves around the flood time level are all perfectly uniform, as you seem to have tried to slide by us here. You haven't even supported the Japan claims you made here, in regards to how much it supposed moved in the continental separation. Time is a ticking. Or was that just another empty claim as well?

I guess you hope that by focusing on one lake you can try to dodge that fact that many lakes around the world have annual varves that extend smoothly back through the time of you supposed flood with no indication that such a flood ever occurred.

So now I am a nasty trickster, in trying to remain close to your own topic, and claims?? Sounds like you are getting desperate here.

So are you again trying to claim that the varves were deposited before the flood and that a flood that burst from the fountains of the deep and covered all the mountains didn't disturb soft sediments in the bottom of a lake that is near sea level?

Say what?? I have no idea. I simply look at the evidences presented so far. And, so far, I see no reason to resort to a pre flood deposition. By the way, the waters came from heaven, not just some fountains. Since the varves are soft, and there are not that many of them, why place it pre flood?

There was no split or flood and nothing in any of the data from several different lakes, tree ring chronologies, coral couplets, ice cores or sea floor sediments gives the slightest bit of evidence of anything special happening about the time that you claim that there was.

[/quoote] What was happening special was not just there, but everywhere. A different universe fabric, and laws, apparently. Thins that allowed fast deposition of layers, coral and tree growth, etc. You may not misread the patterns, and remnant materials into a mythical same state past, until first you provide one. Not wish for one, assume one, believe in one, and pretend there was one. So far, that is where you are at. No wonder your case is full of holes.

The data are presented in several different correlation graphs. Your attempts to dodge the fact that you can't explain them with your different past myth have been anything but honest.

Corrleating what, though? That is the question. The line simply charts carbon levels as if they represented same state past decay, and etc. A religious exercise. A fanciful frolic in the fantasy past of your dreams. A misuse of evidence, and religious rendering of the unknown.

The correlation between 14C in annual varves and tree rings goes smoothly through the period you claim the flood occurred and show not the slightest evidence of it. The data also correlate with the data from the varves in Lake Suigetsu and Lake Gosciaz in Poland, varves from the Cariaco basin and with coral couplet data. None of these data sets show the least bit of evidence of any global flood or "split"

It is expected that the below split level varves, or trees, would have a different carbon reality reflected in the remains of the day. One can chart all that however one wants to subject it to one's beliefs of the past! That is what you have done, and I can play that game as well.

Again, there was no flood and there is nothing imaginary about the graphs. [/auote] I think we are starting to see the worth of your claims here, and relligious statements, based on knowing nothing. Bluster.

The problem you have is that even your imagination can't come up with a way to explain the correlations in the data using your failed different past mythology.

The data is easy to explain, it is merely carbon, and having more of a certain isotope of it, in the past, than you expect if the past were the same state as the present. No challenge at all. You just are not used to people not buying your assumptions on the unknown past.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Does a 'precise correlation' include a picture of the actual varves YOU claim are not different anywhere in the disputed zone? If THEY made that claim, I might ask them.

So send them an email and ask them. They took high resolution images and counted the same number of varves in each of the three cores.

So if you want them to bail you out, they better have the goods. Looking at carbon levels in twigs and leaves, in a deposit that may be after the flood, and reflecting the differences of the times, cannot be magically morphed into today's realities, and levels, just by hand waving up an imaginary line, based on assuming it could.

More babble that means and explains nothing.

So, the carbon in the varves was deposited, in a way that left a pattern. No surprise there.

The pattern of 14C in the first 11,000 of the 45,000 varves measured is the same at in the 11,000 tree rings. It is not a surprise if each is annual. How does that correlating pattern that also correlate with U-Th dating data from coral couplets arise in your model in which there is not even any radioactive decay of 14C before the split and in which a global flood should have stirred up the varves tremedously.

If the deposit was post flood, then all we are looking at is about a century for most of this anyhow!

So during this century of magic physics we need to deposit about 40,000 varves and form about 6,000 tree rings and still have them have a pattern such that each looks annual by 14C dating and that shows no apparent change of state anywhere. Futher, the tree ring and Suigetsu lake varve data correlate with data from sea floor sediments, several other lakes and U-Th dating of 15,000 coral couplet. All these data correlate with ice core data to give a consistent date for Younger Dryas. Then we need to have "rapid continent separation", with all sorts of uplifting and "basement shoving" and so forth going on without stirring up the varves in any of the lakes that show this pattern.

You still don't understand what a problem this is for your model do you?

Then, in the many centuries after this present state came to be, and it's deposition rates, carbon levels in the current life processes, etc.. the top side varves may have been deposited. Therefore, the slow yearly rate of deposit applies for the last several thousand years. But, in the post flood century before that started, most of the 40,000 layers would have been layed down! Therefore a pattern such as carbon levels, or similar looking sized layers is nothing strange.

So 40.000 varves in a century, 6,000 ring in a century and each looks annual by 14C. Somehow you deposit 400 varves per year and form 60 tree rings per year, and each of the last 6,000 varves has the same ratio of 14C/12C as each of the tree rings. How does that work? You don't even allow for any radiometric decay during this time of magic physics.

Well, that leaves you not knowing now, doesn't it!! Far as I know, then, there could be a hiccup somewhere in the flood/split varve zone, and tree rings also.

No hiccup shows in the graphs or in the varves and a hiccup can not explain the correlations in the data.

Well, the data here is that you have no data we can see at all, just empty religious claims. We do not know about whether the tree rings and verves around the flood time level are all perfectly uniform, as you seem to have tried to slide by us here.

Perfectly uniform? No. They are never prefectly uniform anywhere but there is no evidence they are less uniform in the region you claim for the flood than they are anywhere else and they did precisely correlate between the three segements and there is no evidence of your split or global flood in the data from the Lake Suigetsu varves or anywhere else for that matter.

You haven't even supported the Japan claims you made here, in regards to how much it supposed moved in the continental separation.

Look at the width of the Sea of Japan. That is how far the Japanese islands moved from the mainland when the sea of Japan formed 15 million years ago. It is a little hard to tell how much that area of the coast moved around before the sea of Japan formed.

Time is a ticking. Or was that just another empty claim as well? So now I am a nasty trickster, in trying to remain close to your own topic, and claims??

No you are just desperately flailing around trying and failing to refute this falisification of your different past fantasy.

Sounds like you are getting desperate here. Say what?? I have no idea. I simply look at the evidences presented so far.

No, you simply ignore the evidence presented so far.

And, so far, I see no reason to resort to a pre flood deposition. By the way, the waters came from heaven, not just some fountains. Since the varves are soft, and there are not that many of them, why place it pre flood?

That is what you were trying to do. I am merely saying that the data show that they were deposited annually from long before the time you claim for the flood right up the the recent past.

What was happening special was not just there, but everywhere. A different universe fabric, and laws, apparently. Thins that allowed fast deposition of layers, coral and tree growth, etc. You may not misread the patterns, and remnant materials into a mythical same state past, until first you provide one. Not wish for one, assume one, believe in one, and pretend there was one. So far, that is where you are at. No wonder your case is full of holes. Corrleating what, though? That is the question. The line simply charts carbon levels as if they represented same state past decay, and etc. A religious exercise. A fanciful frolic in the fantasy past of your dreams. A misuse of evidence, and religious rendering of the unknown. It is expected that the below split level varves, or trees, would have a different carbon reality reflected in the remains of the day. One can chart all that however one wants to subject it to one's beliefs of the past! That is what you have done, and I can play that game as well.

The above is just more handwaving babble that does not explain the correlations in the data.

FB:Again, there was no flood and there is nothing imaginary about the graphs.

I think we are starting to see the worth of your claims here, and relligious statements, based on knowing nothing. Bluster. The data is easy to explain, it is merely carbon, and having more of a certain isotope of it, in the past, than you expect if the past were the same state as the present. No challenge at all. You just are not used to people not buying your assumptions on the unknown past.

I am used to you providing no actual explanation for the data and again you have done nothing but

 

[dad]

So send them an email and ask them. They took high resolution images and counted the same number of varves in each of the three cores.

To ask them to support your claims??

The pattern of 14C in the first 11,000 of the 45,000 varves measured is the same at in the 11,000 tree rings. It is not a surprise if each is annual. How does that correlating pattern that also correlate with U-Th dating data from coral couplets arise in your model in which there is not even any radioactive decay of 14C before the split and in which a global flood should have stirred up the varves tremedously.

Stir your memory, and focus on what is being said here. Unless there is reason to do otherwise, I am looking at them as post flood.

So during this century of magic physics we need to deposit about 40,000 varves and form about 6,000 tree rings and still have them have a pattern such that each looks annual by 14C dating and that shows no apparent change of state anywhere. Futher, the tree ring and Suigetsu lake varve data correlate with data from sea floor sediments, several other lakes and U-Th dating of 15,000 coral couplet.

Show us the tree rings from the varves! How many twigs were there, where? You say you can't show us the rings or varves from the disputed time? Then stop making claims about them. Carbon 14 was apparently used in the life process, before the decay state came to be. A pattern is no strange thing!

All these data correlate with ice core data to give a consistent date ...

I would hope that a pattern also exists in other things that come from a past state! No, you may not have a monopoly on what past belief is used to process all this info!!

Then we need to have "rapid continent separation", with all sorts of uplifting and "basement shoving" and so forth going on without stirring up the varves in any of the lakes that show this pattern.

Not if the post flood event was over in Japan!!! Funny you never addressed the fact that the continental separation map had Japan over on the edge of all the movement?

So 40.000 varves in a century, 6,000 ring in a century and each looks annual by 14C. Somehow you deposit 400 varves per year and form 60 tree rings per year, and each of the last 6,000 varves has the same ratio of 14C/12C as each of the tree rings. How does that work? You don't even allow for any radiometric decay during this time of magic physics.

You say 40,000. Take away the 44-4700 since the flood/split. Say, 4500. That leaves 35,000. If we had 107 years in the former state, times 365 days, that is more than enough to cover it. (39,055) Coincidence? Since we do not know the rate all we can do is go with one or two a day. That means it may have taken less time. [/quote]No hiccup shows in the graphs or in the varves and a hiccup can not explain the correlations in the data.
[/quote] That is because you are unable to show us the tree rings and varves from near the flood time, for some strange reason. Try to remember that before making claims next time, will you?

Perfectly uniform? No. They are never prefectly uniform anywhere but there is no evidence they are less uniform in the region you claim for the flood

How would you know!!!!? Stop making stuff up. Show us the pics of the disputed zone, or just admit your ignorance, like a good lad.

...they did precisely correlate between the three segements and there is no evidence of your split or global flood in the data from the Lake Suigetsu varves or anywhere else for that matter.

Oh, except, they forgot to look in that area, and you can't support your claims. The C14 pattern is mine o mine for a different state past, you can't have that for your religion, and claim it as science, sorry. What's left? No tree rings or varves from the flood/split time. No same state past, so you can claim decay there. No great movement in Japan area in the continental movements, to do all you claimed to the deposits! What's left, but what is in your dreams? Nothing.

Look at the width of the Sea of Japan. That is how far the Japanese islands moved from the mainland when the sea of Japan formed 15 million years ago. It is a little hard to tell how much that area of the coast moved around before the sea of Japan formed.

Ha. Very funny. How would I know that is true??? You never supported it at all. Maybe the continent moved away from it?? I think you need to back up your claims. Not just shoot from the hip, in some apparent ad hoc claim! [/quote]No, you simply ignore the evidence presented so far.
That is what you were trying to do. I am merely saying that the data show that they were deposited annually from long before the time you claim for the flood right up the the recent past.

[/quote] I ignore the tree rings from 44-4700 layers back you showed us? No, remember you showed us squat. Same with the varves from the crucial zone. What's to ignore? Your magical same state past you can't prove? The decay that supposedly went on there? No need to ignore what you don't have. What we do have is some carbon, and a pattern. Nothing scary about that at all. The data says no such thing as annual deposit past the time of the flood/split. The annual stuff is here and now. Looks like you came up empty. Thanks for playing.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

To ask them to support your claims??

No the graphs they have presented and the varve counts they have given support my claims. You are claiming there might be something unusual in varves in the region where you claim there was a flood with no support for your claim. If you want to support your claim get some data.

Stir your memory, and focus on what is being said here. Unless there is reason to do otherwise, I am looking at them as post flood.
Show us the tree rings from the varves!

The tree rings from the varves? What are you talking about.

How many twigs were there, where? You say you can't show us the rings or varves from the disputed time? Then stop making claims about them.

I have shown you graphs with data from the time period you are "disputing" you have shown nothing.

Carbon 14 was apparently used in the life process, before the decay state came to be.

Another totally ad-hoc claim. I calculate that a sample found to be 6000 years old by 14C dating will have about 0.0003% of the carbon as 14C and it falls by half for every 5,700 years. How was 14C used in this life process? Why was it used less in the organic matter in each varve so that it seemed to be decaying away at its current half-life?

A pattern is no strange thing! I would hope that a pattern also exists in other things that come from a past state! No, you may not have a monopoly on what past belief is used to process all this info!! Not if the post flood event was over in Japan!!!

This does not explain the correlation in the data.

Funny you never addressed the fact that the continental separation map had Japan over on the edge of all the movement?

Of course I did. Japan was joined to mainland Asia until the Sea of Japan opened about 15 million years ago as I have said several times now. But that doesn't help you. The same varve pattern is seen in lakes in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Finland and the United states and in several of these lakes correlation to tree ring data is good right through the time of your supposed split.

You say 40,000. Take away the 44-4700 since the flood/split. Say, 4500. That leaves 35,000. If we had 107 years in the former state, times 365 days, that is more than enough to cover it. (39,055) Coincidence? Since we do not know the rate all we can do is go with one or two a day. That means it may have taken less time.

Actually I said 45,000 that were dated. There are more than 100,000 but the lower ones are not datable because all the 14C has decayed away. The idea of forming daily varves is absurd but even so it can't explain the correlation of the 14C data to tree rings.

FB:No hiccup shows in the graphs or in the varves and a hiccup can not explain the correlations in the data.

That is because you are unable to show us the tree rings and varves from near the flood time, for some strange reason.

The reason is that nothing especially interesting is seen in the tree rings and varves during what you call flood time. If you claim there is you show us the data.

Try to remember that before making claims next time, will you? How would you know!!!!? Stop making stuff up.

Show us the pics of the disputed zone, or just admit your ignorance, like a good lad.

There is nothing diputed about this zone except in your mind. The authors state that the varve counts agreed precisely for three different cores right though this supposed disputed zone. But suppose there were a hiccup, it can't be very significant or the authors would have mentioned it, but even so how would it explain the correlations in the data from Lake Suigetsu with tree varves but before and after this hiccup and the correlation in the data from tree varves and the German lakes that go right through the time you claim for the flood with no indication of any "hiccup"? It can't. All this demand to see data from that region is just a dodge to try to cover the fact that you can't even begin to explain the correlations between tree ring and lake varve data.

Oh, except, they forgot to look in that area, and you can't support your claims.

Kitagawa and van der Plecht didn't do correlations in that area because it was already covered well by other data such as from the German lakes I discussed.

The C14 pattern is mine o mine for a different state past, you can't have that for your religion, and claim it as science, sorry. What's left? No tree rings or varves from the flood/split time. No same state past, so you can claim decay there. No great movement in Japan area in the continental movements, to do all you claimed to the deposits! What's left, but what is in your dreams? Nothing. Ha. Very funny. How would I know that is true??? You never supported it at all. Maybe the continent moved away from it?? I think you need to back up your claims. Not just shoot from the hip, in some apparent ad hoc claim!

I have backed up my claims. All you have done is wave your hands around. You have still not explained the correlation in the data and you can not.

 

[dad]

No the graphs they have presented and the varve counts they have given support my claims. You are claiming there might be something unusual in varves in the region where you claim there was a flood with no support for your claim. If you want to support your claim get some data.

But they support mine as well, so what?? Depends on the belief based staring point you filter the info through. That is why you would need other evidence. For example, in any claim that no differences exist in the flood zone tree rings, show us. Otherwise why talk for nothing, making claims.

The tree rings from the varves? What are you talking about.
I have shown you graphs with data from the time period you are "disputing" you have shown nothing.

Where are these trees, then?? How about the twigs and leaves in the varves? How many samples were found where, precisely, that were used to get a carbon pattern of the past there?? What else but C14 is the imaginary line based on?

Another totally ad-hoc claim. I calculate that a sample found to be 6000 years old by 14C dating will have about 0.0003% of the carbon as 14C and it falls by half for every 5,700 years. How was 14C used in this life process?

How can I live a thousand years, and a tree grow in a week? If you can tell me that, we might be able to get some details for you! How would a different light react with trees? By the way, if there was no 5700 years ago in this state, that presents a challenge for your "dating" methods!!!!

Why was it used less in the organic matter in each varve so that it seemed to be decaying away at its current half-life?
This does not explain the correlation in the data.

Ha!!! So now you claim that there was this organic matter in each varve!!! Let's see it then! How many samples were used of twigs from where to cook up your line, and dots?? But, for the samples we might find, it is a simple concept, as to the ratios of C14. Since there was no 5700 years ago, (in a decay state) the C14, and all other material on earth, used for so called dating beyond that time represent something else. If we see for example, more C14 in older twigs, or wood, than would be expected from a present state cause, it is because there was more used, and/or, it never had time to disappear as they think it would have, since there wasn't the time -etc

Of course I did. Japan was joined to mainland Asia until the Sea of Japan opened about 15 million years ago as I have said several times now.

Meaningless. You forgot to support it. You can say the tooth fairy shoved it over if you like. Besides, all you are saying is that the area between Japan and Asia opened at a certain time. Big deal? What I asked is if you know what actually moved away from what?! For example, unless I am missing something here, the little arrows showing direction of movement seem to have asia moving toward Japan??

But that doesn't help you. The same varve pattern is seen in lakes in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Finland and the United states and in several of these lakes correlation to tree ring data is good right through the time of your supposed split.

Well, I looked at this thread, and the claims here. Each formation tells it's own story, you can't confuse matters, by pretending support somewhere else. [/quote] Actually I said 45,000 that were dated. There are more than 100,000 but the lower ones are not datable because all the 14C has decayed away.[/quote] In other words, there is no C14 there. In that case, I might like to see the zone around where the carbon disappears as well as the flood zone areas. If C 14 was not part of the pre split process, it would be interesting to know. Of course, many creationists think that there was a big difference in carbon levels, in particular. " As explained in recent measurements show that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been building up in the atmosphere. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio has been extremely slight. Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result. Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases, but at a decreasing rate. " http://www.anycalculator.com/carbon14calculator.htm So, the details of explaining the reasons C14 same state dating are wrong are a thread in themselves, it seems. Any way you shake it, one can't just arbitrarily use the present levels, and decay as the measure for the far past.

The idea of forming daily varves is absurd but even so it can't explain the correlation of the 14C data to tree rings.

It isn't meant to explain imaginary dating methods. And, what happened in a different state past, of course would be absurd to a temporary present observer. By the way, what tree rings are you talking about? Where are they? Any relation to the lake here, perchance?

The reason is that nothing especially interesting is seen in the tree rings and varves during what you call flood time. If you claim there is you show us the data.

You never saw them did you? You can't show them to us, can you!!!!! How dare you start making stuff up about how they may or may not be???? Strange.

There is nothing diputed about this zone except in your mind. The authors state that the varve counts agreed precisely for three different cores right though this supposed disputed zone.

What is disputed is your claims of some uniformity right through the time of the flood depositions. Not only is it not disputed, it isn't mentioned by them, or you, let alone shown to us here! Shhhh, keep it quiet now, it isn't for the peasants to look at. Trust us. --Yeah right. Get a grip, man.

But suppose there were a hiccup, it can't be very significant or the authors would have mentioned it,

Here we go again, you not having a clue, and thinking faith in someone who made some claims is required!!! They would consider what a hiccup? Maybe they assume it was a volcano, or fluke, or some natural explanation, and haven't actually a clue!!!!

but even so how would it explain the correlations in the data from Lake Suigetsu with tree varves but before and after this hiccup and the correlation in the data from tree varves and the German lakes that go right through the time you claim for the flood with no indication of any "hiccup"? It can't.

The carbon correlations are so called correlations, based on what we expect top side, present state, way down where the sun no longer shines.

All this demand to see data from that region is just a dodge to try to cover the fact that you can't even begin to explain the correlations between tree ring and lake varve data.

The request to have you support your outrageous claims, based on ignorance, as you yourself allude to in admitting you don't know if there was a hiccup, is a valid cross check attempt. You fail. Your case fails. So far.

Kitagawa and van der Plecht didn't do correlations in that area because it was already covered well by other data such as from the German lakes I discussed.

By that area, I assume you mean imaginary time period? And, having carbon levels so called 'cover it' means squat. Guess you simply cannot show us rings from anywhere in the 44 -4700 range. Nor varves in this lake you seemed to think you knew something about, at least to make a thread about it. Your only point is the carbon, and even that is hazy, as to which twigs where exactly and how many, how deep were used for the graph?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But they support mine as well, so what?? Depends on the belief based staring point you filter the info through.

The data do not support your claims. That is why you have still failed to explain the correlations.

That is why you would need other evidence. For example, in any claim that no differences exist in the flood zone tree rings, show us.

You are just trying to dodge because you can't explain the correlations.

Otherwise why talk for nothing, making claims. Where are these trees, then??

Tree ring chronology comes from multiple overlapping sets of rings in German oaks and pines.

How about the twigs and leaves in the varves? How many samples were found where, precisely, that were used to get a carbon pattern of the past there?? What else but C14 is the imaginary line based on?

Kitagawa and van der Plecht dated 250 samples from different levels in the lake as I explained several times now. Those are the points on the graph in the OP.

How can I live a thousand years, and a tree grow in a week?

You can't and it can't. Your fantasies are irrelevant here.

If you can tell me that, we might be able to get some details for you! How would a different light react with trees? By the way, if there was no 5700 years ago in this state, that presents a challenge for your "dating" methods!!!!

So you can't answer my question. How was this tiny amount of 14C used in life processes in your different past?

Ha!!! So now you claim that there was this organic matter in each varve!!! Let's see it then! How many samples were used of twigs from where to cook up your line, and dots??

In this particular paper 250 different samples were measured to correlate with tree ring data.

But, for the samples we might find, it is a simple concept, as to the ratios of C14. Since there was no 5700 years ago, (in a decay state) the C14, and all other material on earth, used for so called dating beyond that time represent something else. If we see for example, more C14 in older twigs, or wood, than would be expected from a present state cause, it is because there was more used, and/or, it never had time to disappear as they think it would have, since there wasn't the time -etc

More classic dad-hoc handwaving that explains nothing.

Meaningless. You forgot to support it. You can say the tooth fairy shoved it over if you like. Besides, all you are saying is that the area between Japan and Asia opened at a certain time. Big deal? What I asked is if you know what actually moved away from what?! For example, unless I am missing something here, the little arrows showing direction of movement seem to have asia moving toward Japan??

Your map has no context. Japan broke off from the mainland when the Sea of Japan formed. Prior to that it was part of mainland. You are misinterpreting the movement because the map shows everything in its current position.

You will notice that Germany and Poland show a lot of movement in the figure and yet data from the two German lakes and the Polish lake I have presented correlate very well to the Suigetsu data. Their varves were not disturbed by this movement because there has not been significant movement in the time these lakes have been forming varves.

FB:The same varve pattern is seen in lakes in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Finland and the United states and in several of these lakes correlation to tree ring data is good right through the time of your supposed split.

dad:Well, I looked at this thread, and the claims here. Each formation tells it's own story, you can't confuse matters, by pretending support somewhere else.

Of course you don't want to deal with the fact that data from multiple sources correlate. How could you when you can't even explain the correlations in one data set?

FB Actually I said 45,000 that were dated. There are more than 100,000 but the lower ones are not datable because all the 14C has decayed away.

dad: In other words, there is no C14 there.

In other words it has decayed to the point that it is not detectable.

In that case, I might like to see the zone around where the carbon disappears as well as the flood zone areas.

The current level of detection is at about 45,000 - 50,000 years ago. about 9 half lifes.

If C 14 was not part of the pre split process, it would be interesting to know.

How can we "know" anything about a pure fantasy?

Of course, many creationists think that there was a big difference in carbon levels, in particular. " As explained in recent measurements show that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been building up in the atmosphere. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio has been extremely slight. Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result. Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases, but at a decreasing rate. " http://www.anycalculator.com/carbon14calculator.htm So, the details of explaining the reasons C14 same state dating are wrong are a thread in themselves, it seems. Any way you shake it, one can't just arbitrarily use the present levels, and decay as the measure for the far past. It isn't meant to explain imaginary dating methods.

That page is very misleading, pehaps even outright lying. The data from I have seen all show 14C increasing over the last 35,000 years, not 3,500. They do not show greatly reduced levels compared to present at any time though Hughen et. al (2004)* do report 14C levels falling from levels about 42,000 - 50,000 year BP, but errors get quite large in that region. You may notice that the page you link gives no references to support the claims it makes.

* Hugen et al (2004) 14C and the Global Carbon Cylce Changes over the past 50,000 years, Science 303, 202

And, what happened in a different state past, of course would be absurd to a temporary present observer.

By the way, what tree rings are you talking about? Where are they? Any relation to the lake here, perchance?

They come from overlapping chronologies from German Oaks and Pines.

You never saw them did you? You can't show them to us, can you!!!!! How dare you start making stuff up about how they may or may not be????

I am not making up anything. I presented the correlation curves. You are just trying to bob and weave because you can't explain them. The tree ring chronologies are described in Becker (1993) Radiocarbon 35, 201-213.

Strange. What is disputed is your claims of some uniformity right through the time of the flood depositions.

There was no global flood so there are no flood depositions.

Not only is it not disputed, it isn't mentioned by them, or you, let alone shown to us here!

Maybe that's because there is nothing to talk about.

Shhhh, keep it quiet now, it isn't for the peasants to look at. Trust us. --Yeah right. Get a grip, man. Here we go again, you not having a clue, and thinking faith in someone who made some claims is required!!! They would consider what a hiccup? Maybe they assume it was a volcano,

No they see ash from a well known perhistoric volcano and they do mention it. In all three cores they found 6995 varves beteen the 1662 earthquake and the volcanic ash.

or fluke, or some natural explanation, and haven't actually a clue!!!!

They didn't report any mermaid remains either. Should they have been looking? I guess that fact that they didn't show all pictures of all the varves must prove there were some tiny mermaid houses in there somewhere, at least by your logic.

The carbon correlations are so called correlations, based on what we expect top side, present state, way down where the sun no longer shines. The request to have you support your outrageous claims, based on ignorance, as you yourself allude to in admitting you don't know if there was a hiccup, is a valid cross check attempt.

Tell us exactly how a hiccup in the varves could create the correlations in the curves from 4 different lakes and coral couplets. Otherwise it is clear you are just blowing smoke to try to distract attention from your failure to explain the correlations.

You fail. Your case fails. So far. By that area, I assume you mean imaginary time period? And, having carbon levels so called 'cover it' means squat. Guess you simply cannot show us rings from anywhere in the 44 -4700 range. Nor varves in this lake you seemed to think you knew something about, at least to make a thread about it. Your only point is the carbon, and even that is hazy, as to which twigs where exactly and how many, how deep were used for the graph?

Guess what. You have totally failed to explain the correlations in the data that have been presented on this thread and all you can do is blather, bluster and as always.

 

[dad]

The data do not support your claims. That is why you have still failed to explain the correlations.

You are just trying to dodge because you can't explain the correlations.

The older the varves, the less C14 they contain, or, rather, apparently, the twigs in them contain. Isn't that the gist of your graph? The reason you think that less C14 exists, in the amounts it does, is because it decayed away, because it used to be there in present state levels! So, you draw lines representing that philosophy, and naturally they seem close to each other. In other words, a pattern of less C14, as we go deeper. I don't expect C14 at present levels, so that pattern is great. Correlations happen outside your imaginary worlds, and head, as well, you know. Try to deal with that.

Tree ring chronology comes from multiple overlapping sets of rings in German oaks and pines.

Any pictures of rings 4500 deep there? Or is that whole thing simply younger trees, matched up after death!!? If so, do not forget that they used to grow fast, so your matches can't be translated into time! Correlate that one. [/quote]Kitagawa and van der Plecht dated 250 samples from different levels in the lake as I explained several times now. Those are the points on the graph in the OP.

[/quote] They dated squat, as I explained many times now. They looked at C14 in twigs! The dates are merely same past belief, that is drawn from a neutral pattern. The religion of believing that carbon levels of today, and decay represent what went on in an unknown past. That is worthless without proving your belief. Therefore, what is needed, in the case of the varves in Japan, is a look at the ones near the flood time. How many twigs came from there?

So you can't answer my question. How was this tiny amount of 14C used in life processes in your different past?

I suppose we should first determine that it not actually due to different carbon levels, as the creationist site claimed. If it were something that had a half life of millions of years, it would be easy to figure out. But the shorter half life of C14, and unknown levels of it in the past, mean that it might be less than black and white.

In this particular paper 250 different samples were measured to correlate with tree ring data.

You said that already. Pretty vague, really. Where were they, how deep? Got any near the flood zone??

Your map has no context. Japan broke off from the mainland when the Sea of Japan formed. Prior to that it was part of mainland. You are misinterpreting the movement because the map shows everything in its current position.

So, what are you saying here, that present movement does not represent the past!!! My, how the tables turn. You claim that the area between Japan and Asia formed when the two broke off is ridiculous. When else would it form?? Unless there was a pre split lake there as well? So, what evidence do you have on offer that Asia never moved away from Japan, to leave the sea of Japan as is?? How do you think you know it was Japan that did the moving?? (In spite of, apparently the present residual movements!)

You will notice that Germany and Poland show a lot of movement in the figure and yet data from the two German lakes and the Polish lake I have presented correlate very well to the Suigetsu data. Their varves were not disturbed by this movement because there has not been significant movement in the time these lakes have been forming varves.

Are they soft, or hard varves?? How many are there there?? Where exactly are they? Etc. I think you need more than a few arrows on a map to make a case there.

Of course you don't want to deal with the fact that data from multiple sources correlate. How could you when you can't even explain the correlations in one data set?

They all correlate with me. The fact you think they also correlate with you means that the data is belief based.

In other words it has decayed to the point that it is not detectable.

The current level of detection is at about 45,000 - 50,000 years ago. about 9 half lifes.

No, theoretically 9 half lives. In reality we are talking amounts. You need a certain state past for your claims there to have any merit.

How can we "know" anything about a pure fantasy?

I don't know, you seem to like to pretend, when it is your fantasy.

That page is very misleading, pehaps even outright lying. The data from I have seen all show 14C increasing over the last 35,000 years, not 3,500. They do not show greatly reduced levels compared to present at any time though Hughen et. al (2004)* do report 14C levels falling from levels about 42,000 - 50,000 year BP, but errors get quite large in that region. You may notice that the page you link gives no references to support the claims it makes.

Well,I notice this site seems to be a little more involved.

"There appears to be a basis for a quantitative correlation of C-14 ages over the range between zero and the vicinity of 35,000 years BP with real-time ages that are in conformity with biblical guidelines. Because the buildup of C-14 in the biosphere from less than 1/100 to the full zero BP reference standard level over the time between the Flood and about 3500 BP probably did not proceed with monotonous uniformity, some anomalies are to be expected in real-time ages derived from C-14 ages by means of a mathematical model for such correlation. Since the buildup of C-14 from levels associated with C-14 ages in the mid-40,000 years range to levels associated with a C-14 age of about 35,000 years evidently occurred over only a few years of real time, correlation with real-time for C-14 ages greater than 35,000 is highly uncertain. For C-14 ages in the range between 4000 and 30,000 years the associated real-time age probably may be significantly placed within a range of less than ±100 years." http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm See, you aren't the only one that can draw a graph.

I am not making up anything. I presented the correlation curves. You are just trying to bob and weave because you can't explain them. The tree ring chronologies are described in Becker (1993) Radiocarbon 35, 201-213.

Chronologies of trees from the past, now dead cannot be subjected to a belief system like yours for real dates. There are dead trees, yes. So? How fast did they grow those rings way back when, and how do you think you know?? You just assume. really.

There was no global flood so there are no flood depositions.
Maybe that's because there is nothing to talk about.

Then what are you afraid of?? Show us the varves from the 44 -4700 deep zone! Don't just make up a past world, and try to fit the data into it. If the varves are now yearly, why not look at the years to the time of the biblical flood??

No they see ash from a well known perhistoric volcano and they do mention it. In all three cores they found 6995 varves beteen the 1662 earthquake and the volcanic ash.

There is nothing prehistoric! The history is here from creation. I don't care if they did find some volcanic ash. How they know it is volcanic ash, is another subject!?

They didn't report any mermaid remains either. Should they have been looking? I guess that fact that they didn't show all pictures of all the varves must prove there were some tiny mermaid houses in there somewhere, at least by your logic.

Wrong. It proves nothing. That is my point. If it were to prove your claim, of some uniformity, that rules out a flood, then we could look at it. Meanwhile, you got nothing. Obviously. I think I am starting to smell something rotten in Denmark. No rings to show us, or varves from the flood time, though they are claimed to exist!!! In hiding, no doubt??! Why would anyone believe there is, if it is so secret??

Tell us exactly how a hiccup in the varves could create the correlations in the curves from 4 different lakes and coral couplets. Otherwise it is clear you are just blowing smoke to try to distract attention from your failure to explain the correlations.

How about some isotopic anomaly? Some color difference? Some depth difference, of the actual varve?? Some missing layers? Some iridium? etc etc etc etc! A lot was going on in this world, and universe about that time. Too much to ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

Other than a "greetings and salutations" post in the welcome threads, this is my very first post here @ CF.

As I understand it, God created the universe with age embedded in it.

Ahhhh ... the good ol' days!

 

[CabVet]

Other than a "greetings and salutations" post in the welcome threads, this is my very first post here @ CF.

Ahhhh ... the good ol' days!

That shows you are consistent in your misguided ideas

 

[AV1611VET]

That shows you are consistent in your misguided ideas

I was gonna say that,* but elected not to.

Thank you for saying it for me!

* The first five words, I mean!

 

[CabVet]

I was gonna say that,* but elected not to.

Thank you for saying it for me!

* The first five words, I mean!

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