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

["Denver Fletcher" <denver@paradise.net.nz>]

Tim Scrivens wrote in message <9g3dar$tqv$1@hermes.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.


Fair enough.


>> 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??


Can't remember the guys name, but there is a NZr who compared the British
surveys of the Wellignton area with his own and observed the unexpected
rate of change during that time.

Saw it on TV1 so it must be true . . . . .

Other phenomena such as coal forming on the bottom of the lake near Mt St
Helens, the formation of canyon-like formations in a matter of seconds
durign the eruption of Mt St Helens, the observations that horizontal
stratification of various materials carried in water can occur in layers
100's of feet deep in seconds of time . . . .

 . . . while none of these disprove any particular dates, they do prove
that many processes commonly assumed to require long eons actually do
not.


>> 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).


Cool. No problem with that. My mistake.