World Wide Flood Of Noah

[shalamabobbi]

Is this thread going anywhere or is it time to close it?

Your honor, I rest my case.

[Franktalk]

Your suggestion that the salt deposits may be the result of super salty water passing through the earth is an example of how off your science is. There is a limit to the amount of salt that can be dissolved in water Frank.

By what mechanism does the salt drop out of solution underground? You don't even see how the arguments you've proposed don't hold up.

Why do you constantly imply I said things I have not said? I stated the there is salt water underground. There is. I stated that if salt water percolated above then it could make salt lakes. This is obvious. Are your arguments so weak that you must change what I say? I never said that salt drops out of solution underground. Either show where I did or issue a correction.

If you misread what I write then you might learn a lesson from that. What else do you read that you change or add to?

[Franktalk]

I do hold to a pretty literal interpretation of scripture. This is obvious in my posts. So when I write of the flood I read scripture and believe the face value of the words. At the same time I do in many places see additional meaning to verses as I look through the literal to the spiritual aspect of the message. And in some cases patterns emerge that repeat over and over in slightly different forms. So with all of this going on I understand why some people attach to one view and they do not see all of the other implied messages. And it may be that I have it wrong in my interpretation as well.

In the Bible God has on occasion transported people from one location to another instantly. Or has moved people through time to witness future events. I take this ability of God as literal. I do not think that God figuratively did these things I think He did these things. And of course the list goes on and on of all the things listed in the Bible. So when I come to the flood of Noah I read what it says and believe. To me it is an issue of faith in the Word. It is scripture I trust. I do not trust man to supply a correct interpretation of the past.

I take the flood literal and I take other passages literal as well. So when God said that He made man in His image I believe that is true. I do believe that Adam was formed in the image of God. When I read that I see that God had an image before Adam was made. This to me brings up issues between the stated message in scripture and the projections backward in time that some men hold to. Let us say for a moment that God does indeed have an image like He said. And one aspect of that image is a visual image of form and function of the parts. This to me existed before the universe came into this form. Now some say that man evolved from some animal and they also say that the process of evolution is unguided and the outcome is determined by small changes from one generation to the next. So how does this square up with God making man in His own image? If indeed God made man in His image then the results of evolution were guided step by step to drive the form of man to the known image of God. Once the process is guided it no longer is evolution. It becomes a design. So if you believe that man was created from dust and a spirit was added as I do or if you believe God used a mechanism of change to make man the outcome is the same. There was a target image so the natural process could not have been used.

Many say that the Bible is not a science book and we must look to science to answer issues of the nature of the world. And those same people will say that we should look to scripture for spiritual guidance but we should not hold onto a literal view of the words. I can't do that, I think that God wrote through inspired people and was serious about what He wrote. So if I come across areas where scripture and man seemingly disagree I will go with scripture and will believe man has it wrong. As I have stated before the purpose of this thread is to uncover these areas of disagreement and discuss them. The flood is a good example of one of these areas where science and man disagree.

[shalamabobbi]

Why do you constantly imply I said things I have not said? I stated the there is salt water underground. There is. I stated that if salt water percolated above then it could make salt lakes. This is obvious. Are your arguments so weak that you must change what I say? I never said that salt drops out of solution underground. Either show where I did or issue a correction.

If you misread what I write then you might learn a lesson from that. What else do you read that you change or add to?

Well you didn't offer any explanation at all for the great salt deposits underground then. Neither has Hughes or any *scientists* from the YEC camp that I am aware of.

OK, got it.

[shalamabobbi]

So when I come to the flood of Noah I read what it says and believe.

When the scripture talks about the world it is not talking about the planet. When it is talking about the earth it is not talking about the planet. There was not a word for the concept of planet earth was there?

I do not trust man to supply a correct interpretation of the past.

So being created in the image of God refers to our physical features only? Nothing close to Him at all in our intelligence and thinking capacity image wise?

So when God said that He made man in His image I believe that is true. I do believe that Adam was formed in the image of God. When I read that I see that God had an image before Adam was made. This to me brings up issues between the stated message in scripture and the projections backward in time that some men hold to. Let us say for a moment that God does indeed have an image like He said. And one aspect of that image is a visual image of form and function of the parts. This to me existed before the universe came into this form. Now some say that man evolved from some animal and they also say that the process of evolution is unguided and the outcome is determined by small changes from one generation to the next. So how does this square up with God making man in His own image?

Or what might this say about where God's physical body came from? How do you know the human form was a design target? Maybe the process of evolution simply exists as an aspect of reality like immortal intelligences that was taken advantage of. Maybe as often as it repeatedly occurs on planets like earth the results are always nearly the same. Maybe it is guided maybe it doesn't need to be guided. It occurs though, we can measure the mutation rate in humans and in animals from one generation to the next.

You probably don't believe that God created man *poof!* instantaneously. So there would be time involved in the process. At what point was man, thus created in your view, in God's image? When the process was finished no doubt. How does allowing the process to be evolutionary raise any issue then. The only difference is the amount of time and the issue of being related in some sense to the rest of life. Why is that an offensive idea? Elder Packer sneers at arising from the slime as though being fashioned from the mud is any more or less noble. If we are the direct offspring of God there is the issue of infinite regression.

Was Adam in your view created with all the tiny organisms within his gut necessary for life or was he fed an acidophilus pill immediately after being formed? Where did his ERV insertions in his DNA come from? 6,000 years isn't enough time.

Many say that the Bible is not a science book and we must look to science to answer issues of the nature of the world. And those same people will say that we should look to scripture for spiritual guidance but we should not hold onto a literal view of the words. I can't do that, I think that God wrote through inspired people and was serious about what He wrote. So if I come across areas where scripture and man seemingly disagree I will go with scripture and will believe man has it wrong. As I have stated before the purpose of this thread is to uncover these areas of disagreement and discuss them. The flood is a good example of one of these areas where science and man disagree.

Discuss them without defending them? What is your goal? To arrive at a list of all the areas of disagreement?

Edited August 31, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Calm]

What if there is more than one literal interpretation?

For example, the verse that includes "in the days of Peleg" describes a dividing of the land. For thousands of years, this mean to the Israelites and Jews that nations were created and the people were divided among them, a social/political division. This is a literal division because it simply speaks of division, not how the division was done. Fast forward a few thousand years and the theory of continental division appears once you have decent maps to study and people notice the puzzle piece look of the map and suddenly there appears a new literal interpretation---the scripture must be talking about the division of the continents.

Seems to me what was the literal truth for those who wrote the text has a much stronger case than a johnny come lately version.

So which literal interpretation do you choose?

[Franktalk]

I think that many people seek the truth of how things work, people are just curious. I think that science for the most part has done a great job is discovering the cause and effect of many things. They have also examined many forces and effects and have made devices using that understanding. No one can argue that modern devices have made life better for man. But making a TV set is based on direct measurements and observations, the same is true of motors and generators and our material sciences. We can wholly wrap our head around these forces of electricity and material science. Man has acquired great confidence in man because of these advancements. The age of conquering nature and not being a slave to it has changed our way of thinking. Many who use the devices of science do not know how they work. To them the devices are a kind of man's magic. So in the distant past man pointed to acts of nature and saw God act out events on man, some of these were acts of God but the point being that things that are unknown are given respect by man. The unknown being key here. So man being surrounded by devices which now define his life sees the people who design and understand these things as designers and people who must know great truths. That extension to knowing truth is a natural reaction but is false. Just as early man assumed that nature had great powers modern man assumes that scientist have great powers. This is a recipe for all kinds of false teachings. So when a group of scientist research the past in many forms they make statements about the past. They don't have to prove a thing in their opinions. So when a group of scientist all agree on something the man on the street has been trained to accept the findings with little checking.

When Moses came to Pharaoh he cast his staff to the ground and it became a snake. Pharaoh was not impressed because his magic men could do the same. Do we doubt that the men in that day could perform as scripture says? I think that science has limited man in a box. I think that there are many things possible that science will not even look at because it is assumed to be impossible. So I give those men working for Pharaoh a higher understanding of material science than modern scientist. At least they could turn a stick into a snake. So why do we raise up men as gods when they can do things we don't understand?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

You do realize that a mere 400 years ago(let alone 4000 years ago) you'd be burnt at the stake as a witch if you would have even tried to describe how a television works?

Edited September 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[altersteve]

So when I write of the flood I read scripture and believe the face value of the words.

At the time Genesis was written, and to its author, the world was not known to refer to the entire planet, but rather the area that they knew. When it says that "the world" was flooded and that "all flesh" was destroyed, it is based on the author's understanding of what "the world" was and of what "all flesh" meant at the time. Peter's reference to the Flood thousands of years later was not much different. Of course, I could be wrong, and I don't think it matters either way since I don't believe God will judge us on how we view the Flood, and I don't have a solid position on this topic. But I reject the idea of biblical inerrancy and infallibility, and so does the Church; and there are valid reasons for accepting a local flood, as well as other things that go against what "tradition" says, when the Bible is read in its cultural and historical context. It's not merely a "lack of faith," as you seem to be implying, that causes people to challenge certain traditional beliefs.

Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Osborn]

When the scripture talks about the world it is not talking about the planet. When it is talking about the earth it is not talking about the planet. There was not a word for the concept of planet earth was there?

Actually, when the scriptures speak of the world in regards to the flood, it was meaning the entire planet. Science wants to make all characters in the bible to be idiot shmucks, that's a no-brainer. Science states that Moses couldn't possibly have known of the whole planet because of their lack of knowledge coupled with their lack of language at that time. This is ridiculous thou to belive such hogwash.

We know from modern scripture that Moses, who wrote of the flood account, was seen in vision the whole entire planet as if from space. We also know that he was shown myriads of livable planets in the universe. He was basically shown things that today's modern technology can't even see and comprehend. Moses was shown then shown that the entire planet he saw in vision would be flooded with water. I am sure that even from the time of Adam that they had a name for the entire planet. I am sure that Adam was close to God and knew of the entire planet just as Moses saw in vision.

We shouldn't assume that only our modern age knew of the entire planet, when we make statements like that we make ourselves out to be the idiot shmucks, and I personally don't see myself as such a lowlife like that.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Let's take a look at what the ancient maps of the world looked like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_world_maps

[altersteve]

I must also point out again that the first thing we need to know is when the Flood took place. And since we don't know that for sure, it's really pointless to study geology at this point, because it could have happened 10,000 years ago for all we know. So all I really know is that the Flood, if it was global, most certainly did not happen recently (and by recent I mean 6 or 7 millennia ago). There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into consideration that people far too often overlook. As for Moses having seen the entire earth in vision, that is true, but do we know for sure that he wrote our modern Genesis account? Modern revelation states that he was commanded by God to write the things he was taught (Moses 1:40), but his writings are probably not the same Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that we have today. They have obviously been revised and things have obviously been removed from them, as the very existence of the Book of Moses in our Pearl of Great Price proves.

Again, a lot of things have to be taken into consideration with this. There are plenty of good reasons for accepting a local flood, just as there are plenty of good reasons for accepting a global flood, which is partly why I don't really care one way or the other.

[shalamabobbi]

Actually, when the scriptures speak of the world in regards to the flood, it was meaning the entire planet. Science wants to make all characters in the bible to be idiot shmucks, that's a no-brainer. Science states that Moses couldn't possibly have known of the whole planet because of their lack of knowledge coupled with their lack of language at that time. This is ridiculous thou to belive such hogwash.

We know from modern scripture that Moses, who wrote of the flood account, was seen in vision the whole entire planet as if from space. We also know that he was shown myriads of livable planets in the universe. He was basically shown things that today's modern technology can't even see and comprehend. Moses was shown then shown that the entire planet he saw in vision would be flooded with water. I am sure that even from the time of Adam that they had a name for the entire planet. I am sure that Adam was close to God and knew of the entire planet just as Moses saw in vision.

We shouldn't assume that only our modern age knew of the entire planet, when we make statements like that we make ourselves out to be the idiot shmucks, and I personally don't see myself as such a lowlife like that.

Rob,

You are one member besides a couple of others on this board that obviously believe in the complete submersion of the planet in a baptism though it is not clear to me what sins the earth had to repent of. Maybe you could explain the C14 issue to my understanding.

You can let the actual curve do anything you like since the issue is the near perfect match between tree ring data and varve data. Do tree rings and varves not record annual events? And if not in your view, do they vary from the annual consideration in exactly the same way such that a year with a double tree ring is also a year with a double varve? If this is your view would you like to explain it to me.

The links provided by cinepro to talks by the brethren supporting a global flood seem reasonable enough on their face but they don't explain this discrepancy either. You see it has nothing to do with uniformitarianism vs catastrophism at all, or even of other physical laws in operation (Franks change of the laws of physics).

Also if you are going to throw in the continents being together prior to the flood (which I suspect you might) could you then explain why it is that the hawaiian islands which are due to a hot spot over which the plates move seem to indicate a slow movement of those plates? And this not just by radio isotope dating methods but by simple observation of erosion differences between the islands as well (and even indigenous traditions agree here).

And finally when the flood occurred why is it that the lake varves were not disturbed by that event either with some layer of muck or with the removal of some of the layers, a consideration that would allow for at least one spot where they would no longer agree with tree ring data.

If you are capable of explaining this mystery to me then I have a boat load of further questions I would like answered as well. Or were the ancients the only intelligent ones while we moderns remain in ignorance yet, even though we posses the greatest dispensation of all?

source:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Hawaiian.html

[Hughes]

A Global Flood Model.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

[Rob Osborn]

Rob,

You are one member besides a couple of others on this board that obviously believe in the complete submersion of the planet in a baptism though it is not clear to me what sins the earth had to repent of. Maybe you could explain the C14 issue to my understanding.

You can let the actual curve do anything you like since the issue is the near perfect match between tree ring data and varve data. Do tree rings and varves not record annual events? And if not in your view, do they vary from the annual consideration in exactly the same way such that a year with a double tree ring is also a year with a double varve? If this is your view would you like to explain it to me.

The links provided by cinepro to talks by the brethren supporting a global flood seem reasonable enough on their face but they don't explain this discrepancy either. You see it has nothing to do with uniformitarianism vs catastrophism at all, or even of other physical laws in operation (Franks change of the laws of physics).

Also if you are going to throw in the continents being together prior to the flood (which I suspect you might) could you then explain why it is that the hawaiian islands which are due to a hot spot over which the plates move seem to indicate a slow movement of those plates? And this not just by radio isotope dating methods but by simple observation of erosion differences between the islands as well (and even indigenous traditions agree here).

And finally when the flood occurred why is it that the lake varves were not disturbed by that event either with some layer of muck or with the removal of some of the layers, a consideration that would allow for at least one spot where they would no longer agree with tree ring data.

If you are capable of explaining this mystery to me then I have a boat load of further questions I would like answered as well. Or were the ancients the only intelligent ones while we moderns remain in ignorance yet, even though we posses the greatest dispensation of all?

source:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Hawaiian.html

First off, I am not sure on the whole earth needing a baptism- haven't really looked into that.

The issues with C14 dating is that water greatly effects how things can be dated. If there was aflood some 4500 years ago, all C14 dates older than that would be grossly distorted and useless. C14 also has it's issues with too many prior assumptions. We do not know exactly what the earth was like in the past- how much carbon was in the atmosphere, etc.

As for varves and tree ring data, we cannot be sure what every year's climate was like in the past 4500 years. Again, one must make grand assumptions to date things in this matter. We know that sedimentary varves occurring in lakes is highly inaccurate. It's no different than ice cores- they have the same issues. Tree ring data may be the most accurate, but once agin- how can we be sure waht the climate was like every day for the last 4500 years?

One thing that must be understood in speaking of a global flood is that we believe that the entire geography of the land was completely destroyed. Emerging from the recessing flood waters was an entirely new land topography. For quite some time after the flood, and as things began to slow down, geologically speaking, there was probably many great catastrophic events that were happening. Massive erosion, mountain building, earthquakes, smaller flooding, etc. all were shaping the new earth.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Let's take a look at what the ancient maps of the world looked like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_world_maps

Who really cares what ancient maps looked like. That has nothing at all to do with what Moses meant. Moses saw the "entire" earth as if from space.

[shalamabobbi]

First off, I am not sure on the whole earth needing a baptism- haven't really looked into that.

The issues with C14 dating is that water greatly effects how things can be dated. If there was aflood some 4500 years ago, all C14 dates older than that would be grossly distorted and useless. C14 also has it's issues with too many prior assumptions. We do not know exactly what the earth was like in the past- how much carbon was in the atmosphere, etc.

As for varves and tree ring data, we cannot be sure what every year's climate was like in the past 4500 years. Again, one must make grand assumptions to date things in this matter. We know that sedimentary varves occurring in lakes is highly inaccurate. It's no different than ice cores- they have the same issues. Tree ring data may be the most accurate, but once agin- how can we be sure waht the climate was like every day for the last 4500 years?

One thing that must be understood in speaking of a global flood is that we believe that the entire geography of the land was completely destroyed. Emerging from the recessing flood waters was an entirely new land topography. For quite some time after the flood, and as things began to slow down, geologically speaking, there was probably many great catastrophic events that were happening. Massive erosion, mountain building, earthquakes, smaller flooding, etc. all were shaping the new earth.

You didn't address this:

And finally when the flood occurred why is it that the lake varves were not disturbed by that event either with some layer of muck or with the removal of some of the layers, a consideration that would allow for at least one spot where they would no longer agree with tree ring data.

If they are so inaccurate as you want to believe why the close agreement between them? I will post some material from another site that will cast some doubt on your view that C14 is not accurate.

[shalamabobbi]

Tree Rings & C-14 correlations

There are three long continuous (unbroken from today) dendrochronologies (and a lot of short ones) and one (of many) "floating" ones (where they are not directly connected to today), and they are:

1. The Irish Oaks, extending continuously back over 7,000 years before the present day (2010).

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20567947

A major radiocarbon calibration exercise was carried out between 1975 and 1985, and precisely dated samples of Irish oak were obtained for all periods back to 5,000 BCE (7,000 years ago)

More work has been done since then, however this is sufficient for this exercise.

2. The bristlecone pines, including two trees that are over 4,000 years old in continuous growth to the day measured, and overall to an age of ~9,000 years before the present day (2010).

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm

The "Methusulah" specimen was sampled (by boring) in 1957, the measured germination date is ~2,832 years BCE, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,8342 years (in 2010 ... and counting).

http://www.nps.gov/grba/Bristlecone%20Pines/bristleconepineprometheus.htm

The "Prometheus" specimen was was 4,844 years old when it was cut down in 1964. This is a minimum as the core of the tree had eroded away, and this gives a latest germination date of 2,880 BCE. By this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,890 years (in 2010 ... and counting).

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html (7)

The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extended back almost 9,000 years continuously in 2007 (no updates on additional data since then). That's to 7,000 BC!

Again, further research has likely extended this chronology, however this is sufficient for this exercise.

3. The Geman Oaks, extending back continuously over 9,197 years before the present day (2010).

http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/...bon/GetFileServlet?

file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume46/Number3/azu_radiocarbon

_v46_n3_1029_1058_v.pdf&type=application/pdf (link is dead)

The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Göttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP.

4. The German & Swiss Pines, a floating dendrochronology, that is cross-linked to the oak chronology to extend the combined unbroken chronology to over 12,460 years before the present day (2010).

http://courses.washington.edu/...S%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf (10)(link is dead)

The German Preboreal pine chronology has been linked and cross-matched to the absolutely-dated oak chronology. These pine chronologies from Switzerland and eastern Germany extend the measured age back to 12,410 cal BP.

Now the accumulated counting error between the two oak chronologies was 41 years over 8,000 years of cross-linked data comparisons - an error of 0.5% - and between the bristlecone pine chronology and the is off from the combined oak chronology by 37 years in 7,600 years of cross-linked data comparisons (younger than the oak average values) - also an error of 0.5%.

These chronologies are then used to make a calibration curve for determining a more likely actual age from the 14C age calculations. To do this they took samples from the tree rings and measured the actual 14C values. The amount of 14C in a tree ring is locked in by the growth of the tree, and represents the amount of 14C available in the atmosphere when the tree grew, when corrected for decay.

Not only was there only a strong correlation between the three dendrochronologies, there was also a strong correlation in each one with the actual amount of 14C left in the tree rings. When calculated for radioactive decay and compared to the dendrochronology they showed this calibration curve:

[shalamabobbi]

Note that the curve has almost continuous small jagged variations around a smooth curve.

The production of 14C is related to cosmic ray emissions from the sun:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable

Cosmic rays enter the atmosphere in large numbers every day, and their interaction with the atmosphere causes 14C to be produced at a rate proportional to the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere.

Over long geological periods, changes in the long term climate can affect this proportion to a slight degree (the long term trend in the graph).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

The production of cosmic rays also varies with a solar cycle of ~28 years. This cycle is responsible for the small jagged teeth in the graph.

In addition to age and 14C, the tree rings record the climate for each year that the tree grew.

The correlations you need to explain then are:

* between each of the oak chronologies for age and climate changes and patterns,

* between the bristlecone pine and the oak chronologies for age and climate changes and patterns,

* between the irish oak and 14C age,

* between the bristlecone pine and 14C age,

* between the german oak and 14C age,

* the 14C ages between each of these sets,

* the correlation between each dendrochronolgy, 14C age, and the solar cosmic ray cycle.

Note that this last item acts as a clock check on the other data, a steady clock tick of solar cycle in each set of data confirms that the same solar cycle is in effect in each one, and also shows that there has been no change in the rate that the clock ticks.

As noted, the accuracy of this data is +/-0.5% maximum in absolute age. The possible error in 14C age is higher due to the 28 year cycle jags such that a 14C date can correlate with 3 different points on the curve, however the overall accuracy of 14C dating with this calibration is less than 10% maximum.

The tree ring chronology is continuous and unbroken for 12,460 years before the present day (2010).

And this is only the beginning of the correlations that validate 14C.

Lake Suigetsu Varves and 14C

This is a single chronology formed by alternating biological deposition (diatoms in summer) and sediment deposition (clay in winter). The clay is being deposited all year, but settles slower than the diatoms, so in the summer (when a lot of diatoms grow and die) there are more diatom shells than clay, while in the winter (when diatom growth is halted) there is more clay deposited than diatoms.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187

If the above link is not accessible try http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

This is another floating chronology, but it is over 29,000 years long, and it overlaps and lines up perfectly with the dendrochronology above. The annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr BP when aligned with the tree chronology).

The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, however the data below 37,930 cal yr BP level uses an estimated rate of sedimentation rather than actual layer counts. Using only the actual layer counts we end up with either of these two scenarios:

1. This chronology does not overlap the one from the tree-ring data (in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels), and the minimum age of the earth is 12,460 + 29,100 (+/-) = ~39,560 (+/-) years old (and likely more depending on the length of the gap), OR

2. These chronologies do overlap, as determined by matching the "C-14 age" curves, and the minimum age of the earth is 37,930 (+/-) years BP (1950) = ~35,980 (+/-) years old in 2010.

Here's the combined calibration curve:

[shalamabobbi]

Where the green line is the calibration curve from the tree rings shown previously, and the blue circles are the data from the lake varve samples (from organic matter deposited in the layers).

The data from the lake is taken from one long core and four shorter cores, taken from different locations in the lake, and thus there is a lot of samples up to ~20,000 years ago and then fewer samples after that, but all the samples still fall on a general curve. The multiple cores also eliminate the possibility that a mud slide could contaminate the data and cause false layering (a common creationist attempt at discrediting the data).

Now the problem for you is not just the correlations between the dendrochronologies and the lake varve chronology, but with the rate of sedimentation - the deposition rate of the layers - with the 14C concentrations:

This graph shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth. As shown, the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). At the end of the glacial period the rate of deposition changed, as would be expected when less water is tied up in ice and the climate warms.

The correlations you need to explain then are:

* between the varve age and 14C age,

* between the varve age and deposition rate change with climate,

* between the 14C age and the deposition rate change with climate.

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.

When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:

Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"

There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age.

This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age.

Summary

This is just a small sampling of the objective data that shows a consistent and intercorrelated pattern of age. This data does not extend back to the extreme age of the earth, but it does extend back to well beyond any creationist YEC age known.

Curiously, the actual age of the earth does not need to be proven to be extremely old to falsify the typical YEC assertion, it just needs to be sufficiently old that the YEC position is untenable.

This data does that.

Once you accept that the YEC age is false, then we can move on to other information on how old the earth really is.

Enjoy.

source: RAZD contribution on EvC forum, dates and dating section.

[Rob Osborn]

I see nothing in your data that suggests the world wide flood didn't occur.

[shalamabobbi]

I see nothing in your data that suggests the world wide flood didn't occur.

This Rob, you still haven't addressed it..

And finally when the flood occurred why is it that the lake varves were not disturbed by that event either with some layer of muck or with the removal of some of the layers, a consideration that would allow for at least one spot where they would no longer agree with tree ring data.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I read nothing in Scripture that has Moses having seen the days of Noah.

[Ron Beron]

Actually, when the scriptures speak of the world in regards to the flood, it was meaning the entire planet.

What words in Hebrew are you implying mean the "entire planet"? Ha'eretz does not mean the whole planet even if it did exist in the minds of ancient scholars. They considered the earth was flat divided into two spheres.

[shalamabobbi]

I stumbled upon RAZD's web page (I didn't know he had one). His real name is Paul Smith.

http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm