[1-0] Contents & Foreword
© Lloyd

This is a paper under construction. It started with a forum discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025 which is still ongoing. The material here is mainly quoted from that discussion, with much deleted and all reorganized. I plan to use that material as an aid for writing this paper. I'll probably retain some of the quotes, but I expect not a lot of them.

[1-0] Contents & Foreword
Major Earth Events
[1-1] The Former Supercontinent [1-2] The Great Flood [1-3] The Supercontinent Breakup & Orogenesis [1-4] The Ice Age
Saturn Age
[1-5] Earth Origin [1-6] Saturn Pole Star [1-7] Venus Comet [1-8] Mars Warrior


[1-0] Contents & Foreword

[1-1] The Former Supercontinent

[1-2] The Great Flood





[1-3] The Supercontinent Breakup & Orogenesis

[1-4] The Ice Age




I think the following is a rather objective analysis of others' findings on Solar System Chronology.

. Origin.
The Earth and the Moon are of indeterminate ages.

>6k-4.4k. Supercontinent.
A collision with an asteroid partly formed a supercontinent on Earth and possibly also formed the Moon over 6,000 years ago. The land had no mountains. Earth was shrouded in a much thicker atmosphere.

>6k. Precambrian Strata.
A close encounter with the Moon or an asteroid caused tsunamis that formed pre- Cambrian sedimentary rock strata on the Moon without fossils, also over 6,000 years ago.

?6k. Life.
Life originated on Earth at least 6,000 years ago. Dinosaurs dominated the supercontinent. The climate on the supercontinent centered on the equator was warm.

?5k. Great Flood.
A close encounter with a large body caused tsunamis that formed sedimentary rock strata about a mile thick containing fossils on the supercontinent about 5,000 years ago. Many large meteors impacted the Earth. The dinosaurs were mostly wiped out. Much of the atmosphere was lost.

?5k-4.4k. Mammals.
The supercontinent became dominated by large mammals after the flood.

4.5k. Conflagration.
Large meteors hit the Yucatan, Hudson Bay and possibly Siberia. They caused a conflagration and deposited ash and glass debris about 4,500 years ago.

4.4k. Supercontinent Breakup.
A very large meteor hit the supercontinent north of Madagascar about 4,400 years ago. The impact broke it apart and the continents slid over the Moho layer to near their present positions in a short time. This flooded large areas and killed most of the large mammals. The northern continents were pushed north and Antarctica south into freezing climates. Mountains and volcanoes formed on the continents.

4.4k-?3.5k. Ice Age.
Volcanoes and hurricanes put a lot of dust in the air, which cooled the air and caused precipitation of heavy rain and snow. Glaciation covered much of Europe and North America. This lasted a few hundred years.

4.4k-?4k. Resettlement.
Humans migrated and started bronze-age civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, India, China and possibly Brazil about 4,200 years ago. Myths and religions commemorated the former Golden Age.

>6k-4.4k. Golden Age.
Venus, Mars and Earth were planets of Saturn until about 4,400 years ago, when the system destabilized and broke up, causing major impacts on Earth, the Moon and other bodies.


Good news and bad news: the bad news is that society has been increasingly corrupted by corporate profit-making and exploitation, using fraud and other deception. The U.S. started out as a place to practice the Christian ideal of sharing love for all and that has never gone away, but it has come to have much less influence on the public. The Christian ideal was never very pure though either, as it was mixed with irrational fear of God instead of being pure love. Now corporate greed has become the dominant influence. Not that profit-making is a bad thing; it isn't. Some, like John Stossel, say greed is a good thing. That's shallow thinking. Profit-making isn't greed, but is merely meeting one's needs. Greed is an addiction to wanting more than one needs, which results in shortages and thus makes it harder for others to meet their own needs. Nearly all our institutions have become corrupted by corporate greed, even including science and health care. Since the purpose of "everything" has become to make maximum corporate profit, instead of to help everyone, a great deal of fraud has entered into these institutions. The good news is that we now have an opportunity to re-evaluate all of the claims of the institutions, find and highlight all of the fraudulent claims and move forward with new findings that will benefit all.

In this paper I will start with re-examining the history of the solar system. The history of health care, politics and economics would probably have more immediate benefit for the public, but I'll write about that later. Better understanding of the history of the solar system should have benefits for the public as well, since it should lead to better means for humanity to colonize space, i.e. the rocky bodies in space. The first space work priority should be protecting Earth from asteroid and meteor impacts and cleaning up near space so satellites and spacecraft can orbit Earth or travel away from Earth without colliding with space junk. Next should be setting up bases on the Moon and then on Mars, and later inside asteroids, comets and other moons. Later, Venus should be made habitable by causing some icy asteroids to crash onto it. Earth itself can also harbor a lot more life in the Arctic and Antarctic and on the oceans and even in near space.


1. Radioactive Decay Clock.
Science began to be taken over by corporate interests in the late 1800s and these interests tended to be antireligious. Religious people tended to believe that the Earth was hit with a global flood a few thousand years ago, because the Bible makes that claim, and religious geologists found abundant evidence of such a flood. The antireligious geologists, who probably wanted to prove the Bible was wrong, were not making much headway until in the early 1900s radioactivity was discovered and along with that was found the decay rates of radioactive elements. The decay rates indicated how old some rock formations were, but the estimates were based on some important unproven assumptions, e.g. that all of the substance called lead was a decay product and that the decay rates can never change under any circumstances. __I'll discuss these probably false assumptions later.__ By the way, the Bible very likely is wrong about some things, although the errors may be mostly innocent transcriber errors. But it's apparently not very wrong about the Great Flood. It may be wrong or misunderstood about Noah's Ark.

2. Sedimentary Rock Strata & Fossil Formation.
Religious geologists in the 1800s probably had naive ideas about the Great Flood. The Bible gives the impression that constant heavy rain for 40 days caused the flood and the waters calmly rose up until they overtopped the highest mountains and all the land creatures drowned. More recent religious geologists have come up with much better ideas. The flood was more likely caused by tsunamis and the tsunamis were likely caused by a large asteroid or the Moon coming close enough to Earth to cause huge tidal waves for several months. And tall mountains likely did not exist yet, so the tsunamis did not need to be so high. An amateur religious geologist friend says that the Bible mentions that "matar" fell during the flood and he thinks the matar means meteors and the fountains of the deep were meteor splashes in the oceans. If the flood waters rose calmly just from rain and maybe underground waters, the sedimentary rock strata and fossils would not be well explained, but if tsunamis caused the flood, that would explain the strata and fossils very well. The tsunamis would have brought mud and sand from the continental margins onto the land, burying animals and plants and forming strata containing fossils. Antibiblical geologists are now stuck with the most implausible arguments for strata and fossil formation. They must imagine there were some mountains of pure sand, other mountains of pure clay and others of pure lime, that took turns eroding away so as to deposit in broad, shallow seas a stratum of sand that became sandstone, then a stratum of lime that became limestone, then a stratum of clay that became shale or mudstone, and repeating that process numerous times, with each stratum taking thousands of years to form usually without mixing with any of the other mountain erosion materials. This slow sedimentation was somehow supposed to bury all of the organisms that are now fossils. They solve the problem by ignoring it and seldom mentioning it. __I'll go into details later.__

An excellent amateur scientist friend, Charles Chandler, with detailed analysis determined that the Sun and planets must have originated about 380 million years ago. He found that the star formation process is primarily electrical, as explained in his Astrophysics and Geophysics papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 . However, it's also possible that Earth originated elsewhere and was captured by the Sun later. In his model a planet can form either as a smaller bead of plasma next to a larger bead or two of stars, or it can form from the decay of a star. So, if the Earth and other planets were formed as planets with the Sun, they'd all be about 380 million years old. If they formed as stars and were captured by the Sun, they could be much older than the Sun.

Many Bible students think the Earth and the entire universe were made by God about 6,000 years ago. But some think it was only the biosphere that originated at that time, based on certain translations.


[CC said: What is the reason for going with a "Young Earth" chronology?
LK: The Earth may or may not be old; its surface seems to be young. Cataclysms seem to have occurred around 4,350 years ago, which reshaped the top two miles of the continents' sedimentary strata. The cataclysm/s involved meteor impacts, land movements & tsunamis.]

=========================Postby Lloyd » Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:36 pm
- Young Earth vs Old Earth. Charles found a webpage that has a lot of arguments for Old Earth and against Young Earth. It's here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agescience2.htm.
- Of course, those of us who consider only the surface of the Earth to be young, rather than the entire Earth, aren't bothered by some of the evidence. ...

LK: What is the best physical evidence of Catastrophism?
a. Berthault's findings on sedimentation?
b. interbedding of lava and sedimentary rock in Washington etc?
c. Fisher's findings of the large crater on the east side of Africa?
- Can you name other evidence here that you think should be discussed?
GW: Astroblemes associated with every major stratum, the strata themeselves, the absence of record for the 100-millions of years hiatuses

LK: Where are the main gaps in Catastrophism theory?
GW: Gaps in Catastrophic concepts. Our current epoch of relative geologic calm, cyclical seasons and climate were prescribed/predicted at the end of the flood event. Until people begin to recognize that our present case is a result and recovery from the cataclysm of old, the only thing that will convince them is the next global catastrophe. Perhaps even for some this is the lure of Anthropogenic Global Warming and its attendant catastrophes. So the "gap" is the the modern cultural mind. Along with this, the standard model indoctrination of radiometric dating, taught without reference or regard for the assumptions on which it is built, is a roadblock for many. "Hasn't science proven the world is 4.5 billions years old?" it will be commonly quipped.

LK: What are promising ways to get the theory of Catastrophism widely accepted?
- What audiences might be best targeted?
- Christians; Muslims; Jews; homeschool families; libertarians; Republicans; conservatives; private schools; specific places in social media; online conferences; online videos ...?
GW: Catastrophism isn't a theory, or even a variety of theories, it is a paradigm. When you view the world around you, you see processes at work, weather, the water cycle, mountains uplifting, volcanism, the biosphere with its myriad varieties and variations. Does this world appear to you as stable, unchanging [or invisibly slowly changing], predictably cyclical? If so, then the pardigm of Uniformitarianism suits you well, and you readily learn to interpret the physical evidence in the framework of gradualism. Since the time of Lyell, Hutton, and Darwin, the social indoctrination in this perspective has been facilitated by the naturalistic approach of scientism which, by its appropriate self-limitation to the experimental study of repeatable processes has led many to the conclusion that all of the universe of space, time and matter, is predictable and formulaic. It is possible that this indoctrination is indelible [for some?]; there is a comfort to this boxing up of the cosmos, that makes it virtually impossible to break free to explore other options.
- As open-minded to the evidence as most scientists claim to be, they generally fail to recognize that their worldview is enslaved to the modern materialistic and deterministic paradigm. I was trained in this perspective, and so it took me a number of years to be able to see the world as I do today. We are in a period of relatively unremarkable stability, punctuated however by occasional (and increasing, imo) catastrophic events. The physical record of the past Is full of evidence of widespread and repeated flood deposition, seismic activity, meteor impacts, and the like. These episodes are separated by imagined hiatal periods in which supposed long epochs of mountain building and subsequent erosion leave the earth's surface relatively flat. Without these alleged hiatuses, the record is one of cataclysm and catastrophe. In the "last days" we are told catastrophism will be mocked according to the biblical record (2 Peter). It is possible we are living in a representative social climate. People will continue to believe what they want to believe, until that belief system no longer suits them ... generations later perhaps history will record our time as the Era of Doubt, despite our ever increasing awareness of large-scale catastrophic processes.

=========================Postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:21 am
... If you readers are interested, please answer a few questions here http://goo.gl/forms/z1RiAbZFnj to help decide which topics to discuss first and on what date/s and time/s.
... Previous Answers
Here are 14 members' answers to these recent questions.
Was there a Global Flood a few thousand years ago? 14 say probably
Was there other global cataclysm a few thousand years ago? 14 say probably
Was there more than one global cataclysm in the past 20,000 years? 13 say probably
Are some ancient myths good evidence for ancient global cataclysm? 14 say probably
Which, if any, planets probably have had drastic changes in their orbits in the past 20,000 years? 12 named one or more planets
Do you know of very good evidence for your ideas about ancient cataclysm? 14 say yes
Are you willing to change your mind if you learn of better alternative evidence? 14 say yes
Are you interested in friendly collaborative discussion about catastrophism online (preferably on an Etherpad)? 12 say yes

- Chronology: Here's another version of an updated chronology that I posted on the Earth History thread.
*(k means thousand years ago)
1. (...k) Solar System formation string from imploding nebular filament
2. (15k) Supercontinent formation from soft DiMoon collision
2a. Biosphere proliferation in ideal climate
2b. Advancement of Civilization
3. (12k) Saturn Flare from impact in Kuyper belt
4. (6k) Asteroid Belt formation from Aster collision
5. (5k) Saturn System encounter with Jupiter
5a. Saturn Subplanets dispersal
6. (4.4k) Asteroid Belt crossing (5 months)
6a. Asteroids bombardment of Earth, Moon & Mars
6b. Rapid Continental sliding
6c. Inner and outer Mountain Ranges formation
6d. Vulcanism in outer mountain ranges
6e. Flood Basalts in India, Siberia & Washington
6f. Great Flood tsunamis (5 months)
7. (4.4k) Ice Age (few hundred years)
8. (4.3k) Ancient Ice Age Map making
8a. Civilization rebuilding
9a. (4.2k) Scablands flooding
9b. Grand Canyon formation by lakes draining

- The Letter to Shock Dynamics (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation30.html)
- The Site's Main Points from "When did it happen?"
... major phase of uplift in the Pliocene-Pleistocene occurred over a short time primarily due to compression by Shock Dynamics ca. 9,500 B.C.
- 1. Before the Flood, Earth's atmosphere was dense, so many creatures grew to gigantic sizes
- 2. Dinosaurs occupied most of the protocontinent while people and other animals lived in Mesopotamia or East Antarctica
- 4. There was much sand and mud around the edges of the protocontinent and East Antarctica
- 3. Then a long swarm of meteorites of all sizes struck the Moon and Earth for forty days, causing rain and loss of much atmosphere
- 5. During the Flood tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent
- 6. As atmospheric pressure fell much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils
- 7. "Paleozoic" creatures living near sea shores were buried first.
- 8. "Mesozoic" creatures that could escape inland were buried second.
- 10. Survivors of the Flood landed in Mesopotamia and spread out on the flat protocontinent
- 11. There were only 360 days in a year before the Flood.
- 9. After the Flood the Chicxulub meteorite hit Mexico, spreading iridium and shocked quartz over the protocontinent
- 12. A giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands
- 13. It raised all the mountain chains, and initiated global volcanism
- 14. "Cenozoic" large mammals & others were buried and fossilized
- 15. Much of the continental crust moved away from the equator and toward the poles
- 16. Atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to cooling and extensive rain and snow fall, glaciation
- 17. Civilization was rebuilt such as along the newly formed Nile River
- 18. Meteor impacts produced the dust on the Moon
- My Comments. I found Chapman's Glacial Cataclysm at: http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/31204066/glacial-cataclysm-chapmanresearch. Do you know if that's the same? It seemed like it was attributing a lot of evidence for glaciation to the Great Flood or something. Why do you suggest that the cataclysms occurred 11,500 BP and earlier? It seems that the Flood occurred almost 4,400 BP.
- In listing your points, I rearranged a couple of items. I put 4 before 3 because 4 refers to the supercontinent situation before 3's meteor swarm arrived. And I put 9 after 10 and 11, because Chixulub occurred after the Great Flood in your model.
- 1. Regarding #1, it may be worthwhile to explain that a dense atmosphere would have made dinosaurs and other megafauna much more buoyant, so their muscles would have been strong enough to move them around, and pterodachtyls would have been able to stand on their pencil-thin legs.
- 2. Human footprints and fossils in dinosaur strata in the U.S. Southwest seem to indicate that humans lived among dinosaurs to some extent.
- 4. I think shale makes up over 50% of sedimentary strata, sandstone 25% and limestone the rest. According to Noah's Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History (by Baumgardner & others) at http://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation- of-earth-history/ tsunamis 2,500 m high caused by tidal pulses could have produced enough cavitation along continental margins to produce all of the sediments needed. It suggests that the 5 megasequences of rock strata could have been deposited during monthly tidal pulses between the 6 unconformities bordering the megasequences. Snelling, on the other hand, seems to agree with your idea of sand and mud coming up from the seafloor via smaller tsunamis, I guess. But I presume both processes would have been involved.
- 3. Gordon says the Hebrew word, "matar", probably meant "meteors" and they occurred during the entire 5 months of the Great Flood. This reminded me of the part of the Saturn Theory that says Earth was a satellite of Saturn and it drifted away from Saturn and then crossed the Asteroid belt before arriving at its present orbit. I thought maybe the 5 month meteor bombardment may have occurred when Earth crossed the Asteroid belt. I thought that might be when the Ice Age occurred, when Earth moved from the Asteroid belt to within the orbit of Mars. Before that its atmosphere may have been thick enough to prevent much cooling. However, it looks like the Ice Age had to occur some time after the Great Flood, as you say. There seems to be something to the Saturn Theory, because the ancients said Saturn was the god at the north pole, the pole star, and that Saturn was the first Sun etc.
- 5. seems probable re sedimentation; plus my comments on #4.
- 6. seems probable re lime from seawater; I didn't know that, but Gordon may have been aware of that.
- 7&8. seem probable re sequence of "Paleozoic" & "Mesozoic" creatures' burials.
- 10. seems possible re Survivors landing in Mesopotamia. Saturn Theory says a lot of phenomena in ancient myths were celestial events, rather than terrestrial. There were plasma phenomena seen in the sky that looked like people and animals etc. So it's hard to tell if Noah's ark was celestial or also terrestrial.
- 11. seems possible re 360 days in a year before the Flood. That doesn't seem important as yet, but it could be.
- 9. seems possible re Chicxulub meteorite hitting after the Flood. I'd like to know more of your evidence for that.
- 12. seems very probable re SD impact and rapid continental drift. Maybe you need a video to address the issue of why the popular Creationist theory of rapid CD is inferior to the SD model. I guess you might have to suppress your idea of the Great Flood occurring before 11,500 BP in order to get Creationists to consider your model.
- 13. seems probable re SD causing mountain uplift and volcanism, but I thought that all occurred during the Great Flood, because the sediments would have been soft, so the strata could fold without breaking, as seen in many mountain strata. If the mountain uplift happened long after the Great Flood, would the strata still have been soft? Or do you think the strata were softened by heating during the SD event? If so, do you have much evidence for that? I bet Gordon would know something about that.
- 14. seems plausible re "Cenozoic" animals fossilized during the SD event in crumbly strata.
- 15. seems probable re SD pushing some continents toward the poles.
- 16. seems probable re evaporation & glaciation. Gordon says secondary erosion and sedimentation occurred after mountain uplift.
- 17. seems probable re civilization rebuilding along the Nile etc, but much later, i.e. ca. 4,300 BP.
- 18. seems probable re meteor impacts making the dust on the Moon.
- Regarding Ice Age Mammals. I think you should briefly explain how you differ from Oard. He seems to say that the Arctic Ocean kept the nearby surrounding land warm for a few centuries, during which the animals got trapped there as the climate gradually got colder, whereas you seem to say that all of the lands were warmer until the SD event, which moved some of the land north into freezing conditions, and the animals succumbed right away instead of gradually.
- You said, "If we use the elephant life-cycle as a model, a 13 year doubling rate (starting with 2 mammoths) would produce a population at least as large as that which was buried." Did you show the figures anywhere? I think it's worth showing them. 300 years / 13 years/generation = 23 generations. 2^23 > 8 million.
- Regarding Tektites. You call it the largest strewnfield (covering the Indian Ocean to Australia), but doesn't that refer to the present size of it? When the tektites fell (before India, Southeast Asia, Australia etc moved away from Africa), the field would have been much smaller. Shouldn't you mention that?
- The Mechanism of Impacts. Here are some of Charles' discussions on impacts etc: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9454-10997-12982-10607-10753-10962. He says impacts are usually thermonuclear explosions. He did do a paper on meteoric air bursts at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7662. He and Gordon consider 26 hours way too short a time for the continents to have moved to near their present locations. What convinced you that the continents took only 26 hours to complete their journeys, instead of a longer period of time? It makes sense to me because of the great reduction in friction that you explain. Actually, there may have been even less friction, since the Moho layer is likely plasma, so the movements would have been like maglev with the continents levitating on the Moho. One of Charles' papers explains why the Moho is likely plasma, only about a meter thick.
- Your model says the Shock Dynamics meteor came in at about a 30 degree angle (going from west to east over Africa and landing north of Madagascar). Normally, one would think that the momentum would be transferred only in the forward direction to the pieces that became India, southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. But Charles' model explains why the momentum would be transferred in all horizontal directions. It's because the impact produced a thermonuclear explosion. He explains that all that's needed for such an explosion is extreme heat and extreme pressure, both of which a fast moving meteor provides. So I think readers may be able to understand that better (momentum transferred west toward Africa and the Americas as well as to the north and east) if it's compared to throwing a hand grenade or other kind of bomb.
- Supercontinent Breakup. I think it would help if your model could explain why the Americas broke away from Africa and Europe, instead of at least Africa moving westward as well. I think Gordon suspects that a tidal force from another large body weakened the supercontinent along that rift line. Charles thinks the supercontinent was possibly torn off of the Moon long ago, because of the similarity in rock composition between the supercontinent and the Moon. So I thought maybe ocean water may have gotten trapped under the supercontinent, which could have weakened the crust in a way similar to Walter Brown's Hydroplate model. I admit, however, that it doesn't seem probable that much water should have gotten trapped, since a ball shape meeting another ball shape should move almost all fluids to the side. Eurasia didn't break apart, so why did Africa and the Americas? What would most likely have weakened the crust there between them?

=========================Postby Lloyd » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:10 am
I'm working on a sort of paper on this at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4759- 6813-6226-9754-18209-18211.
CC on Planets (Earth Features since Formation): http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6199
CC on Electric Orbits (Titius-Bode Law): http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369
Geochronology, Part 1 (Mythic Record): http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
Geochronology, Part 2 (CC on Supercontinent): http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15407
Geochronology, Part 3 (Great Flood): https://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noahs- flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history/
Geochronology, Part 4 (Post Flood Catastrophes): http://www.icr.org/article/4788/385
Geochronology, Part 5 (Continental Drift & Ice Age): http://newgeology.us
- The Geochronology Part 4 includes major events like carving the Grand Canyon, the Floods in Washington and Idaho etc, the flooding of the Mediterranean Sea, which was almost a dry basin before flooding, and the flooding of the Black Sea. I suppose these actually likely occurred after the Continental Drift event some centuries after the Great Flood. The Mediterranean and Black Seas floods must have been terrifying, since both were pretty deep, probably a mile or so. Right?

LK: Do you think the Earth existed before the time the Bible says it was created?
- Do you consider Earth to be just 6,000 or 7,000 years old, as per the popular Bible interpretation?
- Or do you think the supercontinent formed before that?
- How do you think the supercontinent formed on the Earth? Have you read Charles' theory?
GW: I think it is possible that the earth's crust and atmosphere were the topics of Genesis 1 and 2, so there is a reasonable option that the primordial planet and other bodies were created prior to that time by immeasurable years.

-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.
-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 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
- Radiometric Dating: Epic Failure
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/

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:29 pm
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
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
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
- 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.

↑ UP Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US