Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements

Can you provide a reference which supports your claim about Rohl ? Everything I have found indicates that Rohl only removes 300 years from the chronology which places your "end point" during the 3rd Dynasty. And Rohl's chronology is almost entirely rejected by the experts because of the facts that it doesn't fit with.And do you really think that a factor of 350 is enough ? You still require a very fast rate. Come to that, what adjustments do you have to make to Baumgardner's assumptions to get the "runaway" effect to stop at the lower rate ?And there's still plenty of other evidence that causes problems.

No, there's nothing in that thread showing that the Old Kingdom should be moved any more than the knock-on effects of the other arguments Rohl makes. There isn't even any reference to data supporting any additional redating prior to the Middle Kingdom. It doesn't help when you insist that the "Saul/David/Solomon evidence is impossible to deny" when it actually had serious problems.And any argument that carbon-dating is severely out prior to c9000BC has to deal with dendrochronology, too. Or does your assumed "accelerated radioactive decay" also cause trees to produce rings at the same accelerated rate ?

"Challenged" doesn't mean "disproved". It doesn't even mean that if there are errors they are in the direction you want. The point is, if there is such a big error in carbon dating why doesn't it show up in dendrochronology ? Never mind the other studies into calibrating C14 dating.So lets sum it up.You're relying on a dubious creationist paper to support "accelerated radioactive decay" while the wieght of the data shows no such effect.You're relying on Rohl's dodgy chronology to shift things about in Egypt.You're relying on Baumgardner's dodgy "CPT" hypothesis - or a variant of it to try to explain some geology.Compared to these dendrochronology is very solid and reliable.

As I said, I'm not claiming that dendrochronology is perfect - but I am suggesting that it is good enough that we should reject your ideas.How far out does a 9000 BC date have to be in your view ? Clearly it must be wrong by at least 1500 years - in the right direction - and probably rather more than that. It is unlikely that there would be such a large error and even more unlikely that it would just happen to fit as well as it does with C14 dates.

Well you didn't demonstrate that varves can form rapidly. Annual varves fo the form found in Lake Suigetsu include a season-related colour change. That doesn't apply to the layers found at Mt. Saint Helens, does it ? And what are these layers at Mt Saint Helens ? Ash layers ?
And isn't this just another attempt to pass off dating correlations as one big coincidence ?It's just one more example of creationists trying to dismiss the evidence, without really dealing with it.