Re: grat barier reef dying, silted and over fertilised and suffering from occasional fevers

["Tim Scrivens" <tim.scrivens@nz.eds.com>]

"Denver Fletcher" <denver@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
9g22hl$77o$1@raewyn.paradise.net.nz">news:9g22hl$77o$1@raewyn.paradise.net.nz...
> Tim Scrivens wrote in message <9g0okf$4eg$1@hermes.nz.eds.com>...
> >"Denver Fletcher" <denver@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> >9fq1nr$1skj$1@raewyn.paradise.net.nz">news:9fq1nr$1skj$1@raewyn.paradise.net.nz...
> >> There are well-known variables in carbon and other decay based dating
> >> techniques. I am sure an expert like yourself will be familiar with
> them.
> >
> >Yes, there are variables.  If you use the standard tables, worked out
> from
> >the bristlecone pines and things, most of the variables can be coped
> with.
> >Or are U saying that there is a sufficient difference that jps timeframe
> can
> >be defended, even though there is a 10-fold difference.

>
>
> And here you illustrate (I think) one of the major objections: Ar you
> actually suggesting that we can verifiably date a fossil based on its
> carbon date, which is in turn verified by a fossil date?

No, not at all.  The bristlecone pines I am talking about are alive.  They
have been cut down, and the rings counted, compared to the carbon dating,
and this has resulted in adjustments to the tables.  Admittedly, the process
only goes back 6,000 years (as this is how old the pines are), but it is
still valid to disprove the JP theory.

> I do know that other sources have observed that geological change is
> measurably faster than previously assumed, and have therefore reworked
> the backward extrapolations to derive markedly lower (yes, even several
> orders of magnitude) differences.

Sources?  References, please??

>
> In either case (whether you believe the earth is 12 billion or 12
> thousand years old or any number in betweeen) it is a statistical
> nonsense. Given the sample time we have available to us there is no way
> you can extrapolate over 12 billion years. Even 12 thousand demands
> generous initial assumptions.

I wasn't trying to go back 12 billion years - only 45,000.  And I cannot see
how 12,000 years requires such generous assumptions, when there are living
plants more than half that old (only JUST more, mind).