Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation - Page 67

RAFH · 19 Jan 08, 04:56:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleslaw

I'm trying to figure out how you could not have annual layers form in a lake that has seasonal blooms of microscopic organisms. Where else are they going to go besides the lake bottom? And if you have different kinds that bloom in difference seasons and are different colors, what could prevent them from forming distinct layers? It seems like a three year old could figure out the sequence: dark guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, light guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, repeat, repeat, repeat. What would stop that from happening, other than a change in the composition of the lake that stops the stuff from blooming to begin with, as apparently happened with Suigetsu? Dave hasn't proposed any mechanism that I can see that would prevent the formation of annual layers from an annual event. Or am I missing something somewhere?

What you are missing here is davey's own personal Morton's Demon.

Febble · 19 Jan 08, 04:57:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by SophistiCat

I've been looking at varve studies in other lakes throughout the world. Varve thickness on the order of 1 mm is common. For example, in the Chu et al. (2005) study of ongoing sedimentation in Lake Sihailongwann, the varve thickness (as confirmed by ²¹⁰Pb and ¹³⁷Cs dates) ranged from about 1.7 mm in the top few decades to < 1 mm in 1840s.

Figure 5. Varve and ²¹⁰Pb dating vs. sediment depth and ¹³⁷Cs activity vs. depth (inset with same depth scale) for freeze core SHL-F6.

(The ¹³⁷Cs activity corresponds to atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, which were banned in 1963.)

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy. I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

So, do I take it, Dave, that you no longer stand by your assumption that radiocarbon dating is more or less reliable for material younger than 3600 YBP?

You know, I'd really like an answer to that question. I'd also like a response to the various posts I've made in which I take that model of yours and explore its implications for the data.

Is there a reason why you are ignoring my posts?

Thanks for your attention in this matter

Lizzie

ninewands · 19 Jan 08, 04:59:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Because as far as I can tell, this does NOT demonstrate this supposedly ongoing-to-the-present process of ultra thin lamina deposition.

I looks like just one more paper that ASSERTS that these thin laminae are annual.

Dave, I TRIED to explain this to you long, long ago in this thread.

Varves ... varves of the type deposited in Lake Suigetsu ... are not an alternating sequence of layers. The "dark laminae" are being deposited CONSTANTLY. The same fine-grained sediment was even deposited WHILE the light layers due to the algal bloom are being deposited. The reason the sediments display repetitive thin light-colored laminae is because the deposition rate of the diatom valves is so much higher than the normal dark sediments for the short time period over which they are deposited that they change the appearance of the lake bottom sediments from dark to light. In short, for a brief period of time at the end of each episode of algal blooming more light-colored sediment is deposited than dark-colored, BUT (and this is a very important "but") the deposition of the dark, organic-rich material never stops. It is an ongoing process. The deposition of the thin light-colored laminae are what is episodic and the episodes are annual in nature because algal blooms tend to be annual in nature.

I KNOW you are not uneducable or you could never have attained a BSEE and you could never have passed Undergraduate Flight Training in the Air Force. I KNOW you are CAPABLE of understanding the things we are trying to tell you. On the other hand you simply REFUSE to learn anything ... .

Ignorance that is willful or intentional is one of the definitions of stupidity, Dave. Would you rather admit stupidity than admit these people here, who have devoted their entire life to the study of scientific phenomena, who earn their living studying scientific phenomena, just MIGHT know what they are talking about?

At this point you have beat this dead horse to the point that the meat has all rotted and there is nothing left but sunbleached bones and a sheet of tattered rawhide bereft of any horsehair. It has come to the point that you must either accept 1) the scientists are obviously correct, or 2) you are willfully and intentionally stupid beyond comparison.

Gagundathar Inexplicable · 19 Jan 08, 05:00:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

...
Bet this dickhead is angling for the deacon's job at the local church.

Oh, do try to keep up, Gags

Quote:

Dave currently serves his church, Tri-City Ministries, as a deacon, 3rd grade boys Sunday School teacher... [and other things]..

Well, color me vindicated.

(Don't try to find that crayon in your box of Crayolas.)

Dang, Voxrat, I swear I never read that.
But he REALLY acts like one of these dickheads.
For what it is worth, I grew up in a very religious household and I encountered folks just like Hawkins that were either deacons or other functionary assholes in charge of the church's workings. With only one exception, they were all miserable pricks who should have been smothered in their cribs.

Just my opinion...

mung bean · 19 Jan 08, 05:05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

Well, color me vindicated.

(Don't try to find that crayon in your box of Crayolas.)

There's a hex code for everything.

Pappy Jack · 19 Jan 08, 05:10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy.....

But...but...but I thought that you had already indicated elsewhere that you regarded RM dating as reliable to around 3-3.5k years ago?

Gagundathar Inexplicable · 19 Jan 08, 05:12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

Well, color me vindicated.

(Don't try to find that crayon in your box of Crayolas.)

There's a hex code for everything.

<0xBI 0xTE 0xME>

How's that?

Febble · 19 Jan 08, 05:13:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

[tracked down from Pappy Jack's source, above.]

How come you don't do this tracking down, Dave?

How come you ask everyone else to do it for you?

Because as far as I can tell, this does NOT demonstrate this supposedly ongoing-to-the-present process of ultra thin lamina deposition.

I looks like just one more paper that ASSERTS that these thin laminae are annual.

If you knew anything about trying to get scientific papers published, you'd know that you cannot assert anything. You must either demonstrate it, or reference a demonstration. If you don't, your paper is simply not accepted for publication.

And in fact you have been given demonstration after demonstration, and reference after reference. That you still consider that the statement is an assertion suggests that you are incapable of comprehending either argument or evidence if it conflicts with your prior conclusion.

Dave - if you really believe that there was a global Flood only 5000 years ago you must surely expect to find evidence of it. Posters have provided copious evidence that varves in various locations have been laid down annually for hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of years, and yet show no evidence of having been interrupted by a global Flood. Worse, the same is true for ice cores, which go down far below the limits of carbon dating, and whatever your wishful thinking leads you to speculate about the Flood laying down varves, IT CANNOT HAVE LAID DOWN ICE.

Can it now?

Pappy Jack · 19 Jan 08, 05:14:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleslaw

I'm trying to figure out how you could not have annual layers form in a lake that has seasonal blooms of microscopic organisms. Where else are they going to go besides the lake bottom? And if you have different kinds that bloom in difference seasons and are different colors, what could prevent them from forming distinct layers? It seems like a three year old could figure out the sequence: dark guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, light guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, repeat, repeat, repeat. What would stop that from happening, other than a change in the composition of the lake that stops the stuff from blooming to begin with, as apparently happened with Suigetsu? Dave hasn't proposed any mechanism that I can see that would prevent the formation of annual layers from an annual event. Or am I missing something somewhere?

It's ASSERTIONS all the way down, Coleslaw, EAC ASSERTIONS.

mung bean · 19 Jan 08, 05:15:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by my bullshit. My bullshit is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy.....

Fixed.

Dave Hawkins · 19 Jan 08, 05:17:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Pappy Jack · 19 Jan 08, 05:18:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

So, do I take it, Dave, that you no longer stand by your assumption that radiocarbon dating is more or less reliable for material younger than 3600 YBP?

You know, I'd really like an answer to that question. I'd also like a response to the various posts I've made in which I take that model of yours and explore its implications for the data.

Is there a reason why you are ignoring my posts?

C'mon, Dave, you've not claimed to have Febble on 'Ignore' and I seem to recall that she is one of those posters for whom you have 'respect'. Or are you ticked off with her over that whole evolution of watches/macroevolution thing?

Dave Hawkins · 19 Jan 08, 05:20:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

...
4) Carbon 14 testing of samples in the bottom of the Suigetsu core (~75m) shows a pMC content of ~0.28, far above the AMS detection threshhold. Although paradigm conflict prevents AMS researchers from admitting that this is anything other than "background," the fact is that this is excellent evidence that these samples are NOT "Carbon 14 dead" but were buried during the Flood or before the Flood (See the RATE Report Vol. 2 from ICR.) Discussion at TWeb here ... RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner

Jeepers, Dave!

It seems awfully dishonest to be recycling that canard without ever addressing the fact that it completely collapsed in another discussion you ran away from:

Quote:

If you read that carefully [the RATE "study" that Dave says supports his fantasy]... you'll see that they accept the in situ explanation, and even differences between local Uranium concentrations as a likely source of the requisite nuclear activity. So, you see, they've already conceded the bulk of the argument. Certainly the claim that 14C in coal reflects the date it was buried.

Did you, um, "forget" about that?

This is a very large misrepresentation. They have most certainly not conceded the bulk of the argument.

Dave Hawkins · 19 Jan 08, 05:26:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant. So putting that aside, surely you'll be interested in, and want to comment on these:

Sediment Fluxes and Varve Formation in Sihailongwan, a Maar Lake from Northeastern China
Chu, Guoqiang1; Liu, Jiaqi2; Schettler, G.3; Li, Jiaying4; Sun, Qing5; Gu, Zhaoyan2; Lu, Houyuan2; Liu, Qiang2; Liu, Tungsheng2
Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 34, Number 3, October 2005 , pp. 311-324

Quote:

Data derived from monthly sediment traps in Sihailongwan, a maar lake in northeastern China, yielded a detailed record of seasonal sediment fluxes. Sediment fluxes correspond to seasonal climatic variations. The diatom flux shows two distinct peaks in September and November, whereas the flux of chrysophyte stomatocysts shows a maximum in May. The blooms of diatoms may be related to the subsequent deepening of the thermocline in September and lake overturn in spring and November, and influx of nutrient-rich groundwater sometime after the onset of the summer monsoon. The fluxes of organic matter and siliciclastics show a distinct seasonal pattern.

Seasonal succession and microlamina formation in a meromictic lake displaying varved sediments
MIKE DICKMAN (1985)
Sedimentology 32 (1), 109–118.

Quote:

Each dark microlamina was overlain by a light coloured (calcite-rich) layer which was deposited each spring and summer during the 3 yr period of this study.
The mechanism of microlamina formation elucidated here has been based on the examination of bi-weekly sediment trap information. This approach has permitted an explanation of the mechanisms by which specific events such as calcite precipitation and phytoplankton seasonal succession are transcribed into the sediment record.

Varve formation and the climatic record in an Alpine proglacial lake: calibrating annually- laminated sediments against hydrological and meteorological data
The Holocene, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8 (1994)
Andreas Leemann
Frank Niessen

Quote:

Processes leading to the formation of varves in proglacial Oeschinensee (Switzerland) are investigated. The aim is to calibrate annually-laminated sediments of the last three decades against hydrological and meteorological instrumental data. Results from water samples and sediment traps show that the suspended sediment in the lake is mainly distributed by underflows during the time of the largest sediment input from May to mid-August. This leads to the deposition of the basal silt layers of the varves. Settling of fine-grained suspension from interflows dominates sedimentation between August and October, forming the final layer of fine-grained material at the end of the annual deposition cycle

Hmmm ... how can I say this so that it will be clear? Sediment traps are great. Annual deposition happens. I'm aware of many studies which check all this.

But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

Thereby confirming that only ONE couplet measuring 0.5mm to 1mm or so is deposited per year. I think the norm is a much greater thickness than this, and that all talk speculation about tiny (0.5-1mm) thicknesses refers to ALREADY LAID LAMINAE ... not laminae that are under observation in the multi-year study. It's up to you to prove me wrong.

JonF made a post a while back and he made a lot of assertions about diatoms. Suffice to say for now that one of the studies I found that Voxrat so graciously forwarded to me refutes pretty much everything he said. I'll post that as soon as I have a chance.

Febble · 19 Jan 08, 05:27:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Um... I think you missed the point. Nevermind.

mung bean · 19 Jan 08, 05:30:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Thank you, David Hawkins.

For the benefit of those who missed it here is the context to what you quoted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Hmmm...
I see what you mean.
My mistake.
I should have written "thickness of the annual sediment layer"

so as not to confuse it with, well, other potential thicknesses.

:smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

VR, I thought I should provide dear Davey with a tempting bait for one of his beloved quote mines. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at some point he attempts to use my statement out of context as an example of an authority on varve thickness.

Note that this was on page 66 of this thread, not long ago at all.
It seems to me that this establishes three things:

1/ That you do not have me on ignore.

2/ That you regard my statements on varves as authorative and are therefore interested in engaging in further discourse with me in attempt to clarify the issues in this thread.

3/ If I make the charitable assumption, that you are having difficulty following my train of thought.

Anyway, since you are apparently interested in discussing varves with me perhaps you would be so kind as to answer these questions:

By the way, Dave: why are the "Flood-deposited" diatoms only in the lake and not distributed all over the surrounding countryside like the sediment and ash also contained in the varves?

If you are too gutless to face this question honestly why should anyone take you seriously?

Pappy Jack · 19 Jan 08, 05:31:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

....But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

Thereby confirming that only ONE couplet measuring 0.5mm to 1mm or so is deposited per year. I think the norm is a much greater thickness than this. It's up to you to prove me wrong.....

No, Dave, your claim is the extraordinary one and you need to back it up with evidence better than 'I think'. It's up to you to demonstrate that your contention has any substance to it at all in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from numerous studies that you have been referred to.

PS What about Febble's question, Dave? I'd really like to see a considered answer.

VoxRat · 19 Jan 08, 05:33:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Umm... Dave?

Do you still have that "Kick me" sign on your back, taped there by the grade-school smart-alecs?

And Mr. Bean... were you one of those grade-school smart-alecs that did the sign-taping? Shame on you!

VoxRat · 19 Jan 08, 05:36:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

This is a very large misrepresentation. They have most certainly not conceded the bulk of the argument.

I see you've decided to go the unsupported assertion route, rather than deal with the substance of my posts.

Imagine that.

VoxRat · 19 Jan 08, 05:47:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Hmmm ... how can I say this so that it will be clear? Sediment traps are great. Annual deposition happens. I'm aware of many studies which check all this.

But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

Thereby confirming that only ONE couplet measuring 0.5mm to 1mm or so is deposited per year. I think the norm is a much greater thickness than this, and that all talk speculation about tiny (0.5-1mm) thicknesses refers to ALREADY LAID LAMINAE ... not laminae that are under observation in the multi-year study. It's up to you to prove me wrong.

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff. It's not up to me to prove some Sunday-school tyro - who's never so much as cracked a book on geology - wrong. Quite the reverse.

And we have a fine case of turbo-jet mounted goalposts here. We all know that the current Lake Suigetsu is a completely different lake from the lake in which those sediments have been settling for thousands of years. Acknowledging that, you asked for demonstration of the annual nature of varve deposition anywhere in the world, today.

You got it.
In spades.

Now you want to demand evidence for exactly the same rate of deposition in Suigetsu today that went on before it was radically altered by human intervention? That's just laughable. And transparently desperate.

Quote:

JonF made a post a while back and he made a lot of assertions about diatoms. Suffice to say for now that one of the studies I found that Voxrat so graciously forwarded to me refutes pretty much everything he said. I'll post that as soon as I have a chance.

Why don't you wait till you actually make your case before crowing about your victory?

Never mind.

I think the answer is obvious.

mung bean · 19 Jan 08, 05:55:08 PM

Let me hazard a guess VR; it's because Dave knows from experience that he will be in no position to crow after he has presented his case.

And by all the non-existent deities, I am still stunfucked and amazed at the incredible density of the post of his that my previous post refers to. Even for Dave that is simply astonishing.

RAFH · 19 Jan 08, 05:55:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

You really are stupid, davey.

To have read this and not understood the play on words, even with the quote marks provided, is beyond comprehension.

No wonder you can't figure anything out and follow a simple-minded world view where everything reduces to simple do what you're told.

This is perhaps the most elegant demonstration of your stoopid ever.

What an utterly fucking amazing buffoon.

RAFH · 19 Jan 08, 05:58:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant. So putting that aside, surely you'll be interested in, and want to comment on these:

Sediment Fluxes and Varve Formation in Sihailongwan, a Maar Lake from Northeastern China
Chu, Guoqiang1; Liu, Jiaqi2; Schettler, G.3; Li, Jiaying4; Sun, Qing5; Gu, Zhaoyan2; Lu, Houyuan2; Liu, Qiang2; Liu, Tungsheng2
Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 34, Number 3, October 2005 , pp. 311-324

Seasonal succession and microlamina formation in a meromictic lake displaying varved sediments
MIKE DICKMAN (1985)
Sedimentology 32 (1), 109–118.

Varve formation and the climatic record in an Alpine proglacial lake: calibrating annually- laminated sediments against hydrological and meteorological data
The Holocene, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8 (1994)
Andreas Leemann
Frank Niessen

Quote:

Processes leading to the formation of varves in proglacial Oeschinensee (Switzerland) are investigated. The aim is to calibrate annually-laminated sediments of the last three decades against hydrological and meteorological instrumental data. Results from water samples and sediment traps show that the suspended sediment in the lake is mainly distributed by underflows during the time of the largest sediment input from May to mid-August. This leads to the deposition of the basal silt layers of the varves. Settling of fine-grained suspension from interflows dominates sedimentation between August and October, forming the final layer of fine-grained material at the end of the annual deposition cycle

Hmmm ... how can I say this so that it will be clear? Sediment traps are great. Annual deposition happens. I'm aware of many studies which check all this.

But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

Thereby confirming that only ONE couplet measuring 0.5mm to 1mm or so is deposited per year. I think the norm is a much greater thickness than this, and that all talk speculation about tiny (0.5-1mm) thicknesses refers to ALREADY LAID LAMINAE ... not laminae that are under observation in the multi-year study. It's up to you to prove me wrong.

JonF made a post a while back and he made a lot of assertions about diatoms. Suffice to say for now that one of the studies I found that Voxrat so graciously forwarded to me refutes pretty much everything he said. I'll post that as soon as I have a chance.

In other words, davey won't accept it until he sees it happening, live, in person.

Wottan udderly fooking amazin baffuun.

RAFH · 19 Jan 08, 05:59:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Um... I think you missed the point. Nevermind.

Yeah, maybe Mung should have clarified he was talking about density.

Occam's Aftershave · 19 Jan 08, 06:00:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy.....

But...but...but I thought that you had already indicated elsewhere that you regarded RM dating as reliable to around 3-3.5k years ago?

Yep, he sure has. But that was then, this is now.

AFDave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

There's one for every occasion!