ericmurphy

Because they're settled questions, Dave. We already know that these dating techniques are reliable. We've told you hundreds of times why we know they're reliable.

Do you continue to question the value of the speed of light, Dave? Or are you satisfied that the hundreds of thousands of tests that all give the same result have the value nailed.

ericmurphy

The truth is, Dave, the only reason you persist in questioning this data is because it doesn't result in answers you like. Radiocarbon dating has been subjected to intensive calibration over the past 40 years, year-by-year refinement, elimination of error, cross-correlation to a dozen different other dating methods. The kinds of questions you're asking here have been asked, and answered, repeatedly.

You have this idea that scientists are, by and large, lazy and sloppy. But the only reason you think that is because they keep coming up with results that challenge your worldview.

You don't question data that you think supports your worldview; only data that challenges it. Do you think we haven't noticed that?

Constant Mews

Sorry, this is incorrect. You accused them of fraud. That's an actionable legal offense.Again, utterly false. Anomalous implies data which does not fit in with other data.

You simply lack the intellectual capacity to understand the science, the reasoning, and the methodology of science. Stick to business: you might be able to be successful there, though I doubt it.

I don't know. You are free to ask the authors of the papers, as I have already suggested.
We do not make the 'assumption' that the varves have been forming for that duration; that is the conclusion of the analysis. Compaction is the reason - as I have already explained to you.

It is completely dishonest to ignore explanations that you have already been given. Dishonesty appears to be your modus operandi however.
I have already explained this: the bottom of Lake Suigetsu is a highly anoxic environment. Bacteria - those organisms that do the breaking down of organic detritus - do not flourish in anoxic environments.

Again, the question was already answered, Dave. It is dishonest - and quite frankly stupid - to ignore what you have already been told.
I don't know. Ask them. You're capable of emailing and contacting folks you think are relevant; you claim to have both time and money; stop being lazy and ask.

Being dishonest and lazy are not counter-arguments, Dave. Your ignorance of science and the scientific method are not counter-arguments, either. You might keep that in mind.
Read up on varves.

And all irrelevant to the problem of metric congruence. That is the fundamental issue, Dave - you simply don't understand the problem - that congruent date metrics completely destroy the historical nature of Genesis.

You have never once addressed this problem. I thought originally thle.at you were simply unfamiliar with it. The most charitable explanation right now is that you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it.

I am a Christian, Dave. I believe the Bible. I accept Genesis as the metaphor it is; I accept that the authors who composed it knew nothing about how the world was actually formed. Apparently you are the one who doesn't like what the Bible says; hence your tendency to misrepresent it.

Your understanding of the Bible is extraordinarily pathetic - almost on a par with your lack of knowledge of both varve formation and C14 calibration.

You are the one being intellectually dishonest. You are the one denying the Bible.

Grow up, Dave, and learn to think. You will find it exhilarating.

Jayco

Constant Mews, may I be the first one to say :notworthy:

Great job, man, seriously.

Pappy Jack

Seconded.

ck1

I am curious about this. Have any of the materials listed by Calilesseia been dated by any of the methods we have been discussing?

Seems to me these techniques must have been applied to date specific things like above and things like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Pappy Jack

One of the drums that Dave likes to bang at the moment is the lack of credibility for the idea of 'Deep Time'. I don't know whether this just means any dating methodology that supports the existence of the Earth, the Universe and everything before the preferred YEC Creation Event c.6,000 years ago, but I guess this must be the case. Ergo YEC Deep Time = anything more than 6,000 years backwards-distant from now.

Interestingly, a recent Astronomy Magazine Collector's Edition - 50 Greatest Mysteries of the Universe - available from a newsstand near you until 21 August, has as Mystery No.1, How old is the universe? This article describes briefly the methodologies developed to date the universe, namely:

• 1. By using the Hubble constant - the rate at which the universe is expanding - 10-16 billion years old, depending on the figure used for the constant.
• 2. By measuring radioactive decay in gas clouds in the Milky Way - 12-15 billion years, plus or minus 3-4 billion years (variations according to assumptions about primordial abundances of particulat isotopes).
• 3. By calculating the ages of ancient star clusters by plotting the position of the brightest stars in the clusters on the main sequence - about 12 billion years.
• 4. By measuring the age of the faintest, oldest white dwarf stars, involving working out how long they have been cooling - about 12 billion years.
• 5. Most accurately by using data recently provided by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe allowing a precise examination of the microwave background radiation - 13.6 billion years, accurate to +/- 1%.

So here we have five separate and independent measuring techniques that all converge on an age for the universe measured in the billions of years. None of the techniques is dependent on any of the others and yet all result in similar figures. Dare I mention the dreadful 'c' word - consilience? And dare I argue for overwhelming evidence from the field of astronomy for the existence of Deep Time?

Constant Mews

Indeed, the 'c' word is the death-knell of Dave's Disneylandish Genesis, the fundamental, utterly unanswerable problem.

And Dave cannot even begin to address it; in fact, Dave cannot even begin to understand it.

Dave, showing faults in the varve counts doesn't change the consilience.

Showing faults in the radiocarbon dating doesn't change the consilience.

Showing faults in the ice-cores doesn't change the consilience.

No amount of 'exploration' by you of any particular dating method will address the congruence of the dating methods. None.

improvius

You already answered your own question. The contamination makes it anomalous. If you think the explanation is flawed, you need to demonstrate that. But all you've done is assert that these explanations or methodlogies are flawed.

No, "anomalous" means that it stands out as significantly different from the other measurements. This has nothing to do with any preconceptions whatsoever.

improvius

Here's a BIG question for you, Dave. Why aren't you subjecting the RATE research to the same scrutiny as you are the Lake Suigetsu varves?