Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Ahh, RAZD, it's good to have this thread back. Some recent stuff: the Antarctic ice core record is back to 650,000 years now, as reported in two papers and a news article in the 25 November 2005 issue of Science. Abstracts are free at Science | AAAS , and ,as always, I'll be happy to email pdf's of the entire articles to anyone here who solemnly swears that they'll try to read 'em.

Snork! It makes me giggle.I like that a lot, Matt. That must have been a toasty Flood.

Heh. Probably with about the same effect on a growing hurricane as a sardine farting. What does a plain-vanilla Oklahoma thunderstorm yield in energy? Twenty kilotons, just like Hiroshima was?

Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth, and has a non-zero neutron capture cross section. Therefore, diamonds + neutrons ---> diamonds with non-zero carbon-14 content. I don't know the jargon well enough this afternoon to figure out how much.

They measure radioactivity around the house or workplace in picocuries - pCi or trillionth of a curie - so one Curie is pretty big. Approximately the radiation of a gram of pure radium-226. And radium and its salts are radioactive enough to heat themselves above the ambient temperature.

That is because that area was covered by ICE 16,000 years ago - vegetation to form peat won't grow beneath an ice sheet. [qs]The lack of basal dates older than about 16.5 ka suggests that there was no extensive peatland complex in the northern circumpolar region during the LGM (Fig. 2). This finding is corroborated by palynological data that indicate a paucity of Sphagnum (peat moss) spores from deposits of this age (15). Before 16.5 ka, much of the North American and European arctic and subarctic were still covered in ice, and it is likely that the large ice-free areas of Siberia and Beringia were too cold and dry (16) to promote extensive peatland development. This absence of any significant northern peatland complex during the LGM is consistent with the depressed CH4 levels and the relatively low proportion of northern CH4 sources observed in ice-core records (Fig. 3).[/q]From the paper your link refers to - Science 13 October 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5797, pp. 285 - 288Edited by Coragyps, : add reference

Then why, pray tell, was Alley able to date the 79AD eruption of Vesuvius to within seven years by counting Greenland varves down to a volcanic ash layer? That's the sort of correlation the bozos at AiG ignore completely.

I repeat, about that peat: past 16,500 years ago was into the Last Glacial Maximum. The parts of the far north where peat is now found were either buried under ice caps or too dry and cold to support vegetation.

That's free online if you register at Science | AAAS - or I'll email you the pdf if you can't get to it.

Done!

Are you really Don Batten? Or did you just forget to attribute your cut and paste to him?
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis Haven't you read the forum rules yet?Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

never mind......Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Don't feel bad, Brian - you did well for a Scotch drinker.

I may be close to long enough. How 'bout something besides bald assertions and cut'n'pastes?

Part of the problem this amateur sees here is that pitchblende isn't what's used for dating - and Snelling even knows why. A LOT of uranium-lead dating is done on single grains of zircon, though. Zircons, as they form in cooling magma, reject lead from their crystal structure but allow uranium in. Then, unless reheated to really scaldingly hot, they retain the lead that forms from uranium decay. Pitchblende is an "open" system much of the time, and zircon "closed."Snelling is using his deliberate misdirection to dry to damn all U-Pb dating with one known "bad actor."