Author Topic: 2 = [1-0] The Millennium of Global Catastrophe 4-5,000 BP  (Read 100 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: [1-0] The Millennium of Global Catastrophe 4-5,000 BP
« on: January 14, 2017, 03:08:21 pm »
__DATING METHODS
- NO C-14 IN COAL
-C-14 dating is generally accurate to within 150 years, or up to 250 years.
-Most results are rendered invalid by absorption, leaching, cosmic radiation, and a proven varied rate of decay.
-Balloon soundings show that much more C-14 is still being formed than is decaying. This could be so only if the process had BEGUN RECENTLY. Dr. Cook calculates an age for our atmosphere of no more than 10,000 years.
-REASON FOR DISCREPANCIES: A PAST COSMIC DISASTER
-Plants and animals did not absorb any radiocarbon 14 before the Disaster, Because the band of moisture filtered the rays out before they ever reached the nitrogen in the earth’s atmosphere. That’s why scientists found no C14 in the coal.
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:16 pm
__DATING METHODS
- Dating Methods Inaccurate http://beforeus.com
- Henry Faul admits: MOST of the ages obtained by the lead/thorium method DISAGREE with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods (Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology). Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different. A skeleton from California was estimated at 70,000 years old (by partic acid racemization) (World Archaeology, vol.7, 1975, p.160). In 1981 this age was revised to 8,300 to 9,000 years (by uranium dating) (Science, vol.213, 28 August, 1981, p.1003). In 1983 samples of the same skeleton were dated at 3,500 to 5,000 years (by radiocarbon dating) (Science, vol.220, 17 June, 1983, p.1271).
- In eight separate tests, scientists dated samples of rock – and arrived at ages of 160 million to 3 billion years. These specimens, from Kaupelehu, Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, were later found to have formed in a lava flow only 168 years earlier, in 1801. (Science, vol.162, p.265. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol.73, p.4601. American Journal of Science, vol.262, p.154).
- Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox in Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, was dated at 24,000 years; hair from a hind limb of the same animal was dated at 7,200 years.
- [Ice cores] In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. In 1990, they were found covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years! 263 feet divided by 48 years is ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year. Divide 10,000 feet by 5.5 and it's 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.
Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them. (http://www.thelostsquadron.com). Cardin saw Many hundreds of layers of ice… dark – light – dark – light, above the airplane. That’s not summer and winter. It’s warm – cold – warm – cold. You can get ten of those in one day. Yet, the scientific elite was still calling them annual rings in 1998 (Scientific American, February 1998, p.82).
- Radioactive “Dating” Failure
Recent New Zealand Lava Flows Yield “Ages” of Millions of Years
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/
- Radiometric Dating: Epic Failure
http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2014/11/radiometric-dating-epic-failure.html
Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 1980. As far as volcanoes go, it was a rather tame eruption but it was one of the larger ones to happen in this generation. Because of its size and occurrence in our lifetimes, it's been the subject of much scientific inquiry. Dr. Steven Austin, a creationist and PhD geologist, collected rock samples formed in the eruption and had them tested using the potassium/argon dating method. The results on different samples gave ages between .35 (+/- .05) and 2.8 (+/- .6) million years. The known age of the rocks was 10 years old.
- More on Faulty Dating Methods (from 1st post)
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
http://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:29 pm
__RADIOMETRIC DATING
there are millions of fossils found in museums all over the world ... why is it that the vast majority of those fossils are identifiable by currently existing groups of animals [and plants, etc.]? There are more variations within families of organism existing today than there are transitional features found in [supposedly billions of years of] the fossil record! So without this missing data, the fossil record becomes one of not change, but of mass destruction/extinction of creatures in the past. ... I realized that the extant evidence actually points to catastrophic events predominating the geologic history of the earth. I started by questioning the presumptions of radiometric dating, not the least of which is that without knowing the initial conditions of the parent elements, the ratio of daughter elements is inconclusive at best. ... if one assumes that the initial state of naturally occurring uranium were that of 50/50 mixture with lead [isotopes do not help this dilemma], as is observed throughout the earth and solar system, then a natural conclusion would be that the earth was very recently formed. ...
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:43 am
__C14 DATING
Question on C14 Dating for Webb
Gordon, THE EXTINCTION OF THE MAMMOTH at http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Mammoth_01052014.pdf which Nick discussed, says on pp. 214-5
"However, the strongest evidence from radiocarbon testing to support man being in the New World also came [from] Pedra Furada. Charcoal from the deepest fireplace in the strata gave dates of 3,700 ± 830 years and 32,160 ± 1,000 years. Furthermore, an entire series of radiocarbon dates consistently became older as the researchers dug deeper into the site, going from 6,160, 7,750, 7,640, 8,050, 8,450, 11,000, 17,000, 21,400, 23,500, 25,000, 25,200, 26,300, 26,400, 27,000, 29,860, 31,700 to 32,160 years B.P.555 These dates becoming older with depth were just what was later found at Meadowcroft rockshelter Pennsylvania...."
555 N. Guidon, G. Delibrias, "Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago," Nature, Vol. 321, (1986), pp. 769-771.
- I'm assuming that all of those datings are incorrect and that the sediments were all deposited about the same time probably after the Great Flood. But I also assume that the carbon-14 ratios may vary with depth. Or is that untrue? Here's another quote from the book on p. 213.
"As Dr. Roger Wescott told me when I spoke with him by telephone about this on April 17, 1997, radiocarbon always gives a scattered set of dates. The theorists then pick the ones that they believe to be correct."
- Do you know if any objective tests have been done to see if the ratios do change with depth? Or is it more likely that the ratios are fairly random and that scientists just pick the dates they like from the "scattered set of dates" that the testing produces? If the ratios really do change with depth, then we'd need to determine why that is, but if they're actually rather random, then we'd need to find proof of this randomness. Eh?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:28 pm
__C14 DATING
Archaeologically, C14 should logically show greater ages as you go deeper in a dig. But I have proposed that prior to the deluge the atmospheric structure prevented the mixing of C14 from the upper atmosphere where it is produced to the biosphere where it is incorporated into living systems. So the influx of C14 after the deluge would result in rapidly "decreasing" age results as you date objects further past the end of the deluge. The uniformitarian assumptions behind standard radiocarbon dating yield might a result of 30,000 BP based on the low C14 count where I would propose ~6000 or so BP.
====================postby Lloyd » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:56 pm
__CATACLYSM DATING
- Gordon, do you know why the Younger Dryas is conventionally dated at about 12,000 years ago? Do you think it should be dated after the Great Flood, about 4,200 years ago? If so, what is some of the best evidence for that? In some of the first posts on this thread I listed some of Jonathan Gray's reasons for dating the Flood to 4,300 some years ago. I'd like to be able to persuade Mike Fischer to change his timeline, if there's better evidence than what I've seen so far.
____________________Postby webolife » Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:09 am
- Timelines will always be conjectural and controversial. I'm good with standard C14 12,000BP correlating to an adjusted ~6000?BP date based on the influx of C14 into the troposphere as a result of the atmospheric collapse associated with the flood event(s). Dates associated with animals that survived the flood event might yield in the neighborhood of 50,000+BP due to the negligible amount of C14 they ingested. Subsequent generations might yield dates in exponentially decreasing years down to a relatively reliable correlation with actual dates in the ~5000BP ranges +/- 700 yr uncertainty because of equilibrium/non-equilibrium assumptions. Fossils buried deeper in the strata should show virtually no C14 because the pre-flood atmosphere was free of it. Purely conjectural here.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 09:36:03 am by Admin »
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 03:15:45 pm by Admin »