Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Might'a. The problem is that most coals are leached by groundwater. If uranium is present, why would one NOT have thorium or radon as decay products? Please explain how a flood leaches coal deposits? Why would it no leach all deposits? Hunh? What does 'more unstable' mean? You are either producing thorium or you are not. If there is uranium, you are likely to produce thorium eventually. I doubt that it is a burning question to most people. It is produced by bombardment of nitrogen by therma neutrons. Why should it matter where it occurs? That is where the C14 for radicarbon dating is produced. So why do YECs insist that it applies to other sources?

So, the difference between 5k and 30k years is just a detail? You haven't yet explained why all these maximum ages seem to cluster at 30k to 60ky. You're making this up as you go aren't you? There is solid evidence for radiocarbon dating related to varves, ice cores, tree ring correlation, etc. That you simply reject the data is irrelevant. YOu have been presented with data that you cannot refute.

whatever was YEC, iirc

What about the rest of the correlations eh? Wave them away while accepting some is just being arbitrary and choosing ignorance. But this has no bearing on the consistent pattern of the varves, which surely such a global catastrophy would have done. Again the pattern matches that for climate for the lesser dryas period for both layer age and 14C age ... and with the other layer methods.Perhaps if you settled on an age for your flood scenario we could discuss this in greater detail: before vs after effects eh? Then deal with the age on the correlations thread and let's see how you can substantiate your position.I'll take failure to do so as a tacit admission that you don't really want to deal with any inconvenient facts, and just want to keep to your comfort zone on what you can deny to yourself.I started Part III just for you after all:{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Jazzns, A link showing C-14 dates for marble, grafite, whale bones, and other organics. http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.htmlAre you saying its possible to date rocks, but that there dates are meaningless. Do you agree that the problem to evolutionists is its presense is making radiometric dates appear meaningless.Merry Christmas to you too!!!

edge, You do believe that marine life dates old due to C12 contributions not C-14 contributions. The problem is that leachate contributions of C12 and leaching out of C-14.
shortened linkWould not a creationists flood contribute more C-12 to coal than it leached C-14. Could not this explain Coal dating 50,000 years old and not 5,000 years old.Humphreys playing you game says he has supernatural evidence that something happened to granite 6,000 years. He at least provides scientific evidence for his beliefs, and the creationists are searching too for the truth. Andrew Snelling's Reply, Sent on 11/17/2002Evolutionists want creationists to take your word that C-14 is produced in the earth. If it was that simply by now you would have peer review scientific evidences.There are other age factors in the rocks, that give the appearance of age. However they are always younger than 4 billion years, what the evolutionists are actually measuring is not the age of the earth, but the appearance of age.Until scientific evidence comes forth in peer reviewed scientific journals. It has not to my knowledge which is the whole point.Wishing you too a Merry ChristmasThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-17-2005 11:06 AMThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-17-2005 12:12 PM

Razd, The earth may of been created to appear 4 billion years 6,000 years ago. Your correlations supports the appearance of age, but not the age of the fossil. Here's a link you should add to your ice varve page.Merry ChristmasEnjoy http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c1Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. LevinThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-17-2005 05:35 PM

I love it when YEC's say this. So god is willfully deceptive?

If that is true then Loki is God, a trickster and cheat.Anyone taking such a position is worshiping a God that lies, cheats, plays practical jokes on poor humanity and is simply something to be reviled.This is the ultimate absurdity of the absurd position called YEC.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The Mitochondrial Eve is based on the stable rate of mutation in Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on directly, as opposed to the half and half DNA we get from each parent.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with C14 dating whatsoever. In fact, if we never discovered radio-carbon dating, we'd still be able to calculate mDNA Eve, or vice versa

14C dating of inorganics is totally irrelevant and meaningless because the inorganics are not dependant on atmospheric carbon in their formation and there is no selective mechanism involved to base the dates on.bluntly speaking anyone who says that this is evidence that 14C dating of organics is invalid is misrepresenting the science and the method and the facts and the data and the results: they are lying to you.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you are still not dealing with the correlations between the various dating methods that end up with the same dates for the same annual layers even though the layers are from entirely different mechanisms, nor are you dealing with the correlations with climate information that is also available from the layers and the organics involved in them.why is there such a multiple cross-correlation and what is the mechanism that created each one in such precise fashion to make this correlation appear?Failure to deal with the question of correlations is failure to deal with the issue no matter what you think MAY have been the cause.You link has nothing to do with greenland ice layers or Levin, but is about formation of 14C. Please provide the correct one.Have a happy solstice celebration with your yule tree etc.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Give it up, Razd. If God faked the age of the earth, He probably faked the correlations, too.

Nuggin, They dated the daughter of Eve to estimate the age of African Eve by "assuming" the rate of mutations was constant.Merry Christmas to you too!Dating mitochondrial ancestors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three researchers went even further -- they estimated the age of the ancestor. To get the estimate, they made the assumption that the random mutations occurred at a steady rate. And since they now had an idea of how much the mtDNA had changed from the ancestor's, all they needed was the mutation rate to determine the age of the ancestor. For instance, if they took the mutation rate to be one in every 1,000 years and knew that there was a difference of 10 mutations between the mtDNA of people living today and the mtDNA of an ancestor who lived long ago, then they could infer that the ancestor lived 10,000 years ago.NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

Razd, The link was correct, but I stand corrected it makes no reference to greenland or ice varves.It's about a glacier ice believed by evolutionists to be 25,000 years then C-14 dated by a peat layer (coal) to be 11,400 years.In fact its in total agreement with the link you gave for the oldest trees correlations.
Fachbereich Biologie : Universität HamburgIt does support the upper limit to fossil age is 11,400 years based off direct dating & how evolutionists calibrate C-14 to one annual tree ring per year.P.S. An inorganic object through leachate contamination recieves C-12 and atmospheric C-14.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-17-2005 06:58 PM