Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

Saltwater intrusion into the water table is well known. I am surprised those that studied the varves in Lake Suigetsu did not take this effect into account, or maybe I missed their explanation that negates the water table effect? The Lake is right next to the ocean, and is next to lakes directly affected with saltwater during high tides. Salt water intrusion could have periodically killed the lower freshwater diatoms in Lake Suigetsu.Saltwater intrusion - Wikipedia
Saltwater intrusion is the movement of saline water into freshwater aquifers, which can lead to contamination of drinking water sources and other consequences. Saltwater intrusion occurs naturally to some degree in most coastal aquifers, owing to the hydraulic connection between groundwater and seawater. Because saltwater has a higher mineral content than freshwater, it is denser and has a higher water pressure. As a result, saltwater can push inland beneath the freshwater.Its perfectly natural for saltwater to contaminate the water table in tidal cycles:
Just a moment...
We found that (1) recharge to the intertidal saline cell is largely controlled by the high-tide elevation; (2) freshwater discharge is positively correlated to the low-tide elevation, whereas deep saline discharge from below the discharging freshwater is negatively correlated to the low-tide elevation. So, when the low-tide elevation is relatively high, more freshwater discharges and less deep saltwater discharges. In contrast when low tides are very low, less freshwater discharges and more deep salt water discharges; (3) offshore inflow of saline water is largely insensitive to tides and the lunar cycle.

I am not participating in this thread until all unnecessary and distracting remarks stop. If any of this nonsense continues I will only participate in a private debate. I haven't got the time for unnecessary insults, I am really only interested in science and will not put up with this.

If a process is likely and not merely a theoretical possibility, then pointing out the likely process is a valid rebuttal.

More unnecessary comments, let us all stick to science in this discussion, I will no longer put up with these insults. If admin does not stop this, then I'm gone.

The credibility of this whole site is under question due to the extent that Percy allows unnecessary insults and gives insufficient protection to those that support creationism. He continuously points out flaws in the few creationist's logic, and not the flaws in the many flawed evolutionist's logic. (not from everyone, but there are a few evo's that continuously post flawed logic and Percy says nothing to them) This link calibrates the tree rings with Egyptian chronology and admits the calibration has errors and is not precise. Also there are flaws in the mainstream Egyptian chronology as pointed out by Rohl. Tree rings are directly affected by moisture in the soil caused from rainfall. In most areas even between rainfalls the soil maintains some moisture during the rainy season. Thus there will be continuous growth during the rainfall season, and then stunted growth during the dry season, causing an annual tree ring.In certain areas that are particularly dry, there is little moisture in the soil. Thus the tree would naturally display a thin growth ring for every period of rainfall, because it cannot sustain its growth when the soil dries out. These trees can have more than one tree ring every year because there is not enough moisture in the soil to grow between the periods of rainfall. The bristlecone pines are in such areas.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Saltwater kills freshwater diatoms, these diatoms can form a mass covering over water. Its highly likely that saltwater intrusion would periodically kill off the lower layers during high tides. That is all I need to show, a highly likely process that would cause layers of diatom shells that are not annual. This all happened until a few hundred years ago when they built a canal, so we cannot observe the process now, but the process I am suggesting is a strong possibility that should not have been ignored, not a "phantom" at all.Radiocarbon dates of marine shells are not reliable and have to be re-calibrated:
http://www.folk.uib.no/...gerud%20and%20Gulliksen%201975.PDFDiatoms naturally produce carbon. So we have to be careful to take that carbon producing effect into account when dating shells of creatures that produce carbon:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080123150516.htm
Diatoms, most of which are far too tiny to see without magnification, are incredibly important in the global carbon cycle, says Thomas Mock, a University of Washington postdoctoral researcher in oceanography and lead author of the paper. During photosynthesis, diatoms turn carbon dioxide into organic carbon and, in the process, generate oxygen. They are responsible for 40 percent of the organic carbon produced in the world's oceans each year.So the carbon ratio is most likely overexpressed in these shells, as is often observed in organisms that produce shells, combined with an overestimated timeframe, produces the "co-incidence". I do take the effort to be honest and accurate. Let's discuss science from now.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Thanks for correcting me, yes they produce organic carbon from carbon dioxide. This does create a problem for radiocarbon dating because fossils from organisms that produce organic carbon in their shells have to be re-calibrated to get the correct carbon dates. Was this done with the diatom fossils in Lake Suigetsu? Diatoms are particularly relevant because this is how the varve layers were determined in Lake Suigetsu, from the layers of diatom fossils. The original claim is that there was a seasonal variation in sedimentation covering the diatom fossils, I am proposing the likelihood that there were tidal water table related die-offs of freshwater diatoms that produced the diatom varves.

Thanks for pointing this out in a civil manner. It appears its leaves that were carbon dated, not the diatom shells. I admit I am partially ignorant on radiocarbon dating and do Google a lot, and am still learning. While learning I also probe a lot to test the validity of an argument. I feel that is what this forum is supposed to be about, promoting "understanding through discussion" but I do understand if you no longer wish to discuss this. With a bit of patience we can get through this.

Thanks for pointing out that they dated the leaves, not the diatoms.Regarding the white layer , I assume this is from the increased concentration of shells. This particular lake system is incredibly close to the sea, and freshwater diatoms are susceptible to saline water. Why are you so certain that the white layers were not caused by diatom die-offs from increased salt water in the water table during spring tides?

Thanks for pointing that out. Its since been shown to me that the leaves were carbon dated, and not the diatom shells, and so my point about the shells is irrelevant. I did look up the history, that is why my emphasis is on spring tides and the water table. The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.

I explained this to Percy in post 102. Please feel free to reply to that post, the links explain the seawater tidal effects on the water table. Freshwater diatoms do die when exposed to seawater, and with Lake Suigetsu being so close to the sea, the water table would be effected by salt water, its only elevated water tables or water tables far from coasts that are not affected by seawater in the water table. Seawater is heavier than freshwater, the bottom layers of the diatom bloom would have experienced the greatest die-offs at the peaks of the seawater infiltration during every spring tide. Due to extended timeframes, I believe dates are consistently overestimated through carbon dating. So overestimating the varve period would fit in with overestimated carbon dates. We need to find a better varve sequence to better calibrate carbon dating. Using a potentially inaccurate sequence is not the best way in which to calibrate carbon dating.Other than the possibility of the varves being formed during spring tides, its also possible to relate them to rainfall patterns, wish of course would affect the sediment patterns in the lake, and could relate to intermittent flooding and not necessarily annual layering.

Thanks for the discussion coyote, I have a lot more to say, especially about tree ring chronology but unfortunately this forum is not the place to do it because of admin's lack of moderation, even when I do complain. You are welcome to private message me if you would like to continue the discussion.Here is a quote from admin after I lodged a complaint through the correct channels: This basically promotes a free for all which is to my complete disadvantage, a strongly moderated forum can keep the discussion civil, and prevent off-topic side issues, both which benefit all parties.

Coyote, you are welcome to start a one on one public discussion if you would like. I feel bad that this thread was started by you in response to my request and yet I haven't given it the attention it deserved. Other than the moderation problem there are just too many posts in these public forums for me to keep up with.