PRATT Party and Free for All

Hi Apothecus, It's worse than that -- the calibration shows that objects dated by 14C are actually older than the 14C date.

quote:

---

Message 4 Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
404 Page not found The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

---

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for more on the correlations.Enjoy.

---

Hey RAZD.Thanks for the reply. You should probably know that this admitted amateur spent quite some time poring over your lengthy and information-packed correlations thread(s). I have to admit I checked and cross-referenced a lot of your conclusions, and found them all bulletproof, but in searching for the truth, shouldn't we always fact-check? Anyway, you should also know that your posts pretty much sewed up my personal contention against anything flood-related.Thanks again for your work.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi Apothecus, thanks. Always. An open-minded skeptic will consider new ideas, and check them against the information available. You've made my day, thanks.Enjoy.

---

Thanks for weighing in here, Lyx2no. I think I got that wrong. Perhaps what I should have said is that the eco-system balance in the canopy which would have been so perfect for both animals and plants would become the condensed water which fell and covered the trees. Thus (perhaps) the best possible balance relative to the properties of the water covering the trees would have in the flood for survival of the trees so that the growth rings would show a continuous progression. I'm very sorry 2 put you 2 the trouble, lyx2, but would you mind xplaining 2 dumb laypeople who lyx 2 no what you said means?My position is that if many of the trees survived the flood there would be no gaps and Carbon dating would show older dates than tests would indicate.Further, consider this important factor relative to the unique Buzsaw Hypothesis. If you recall, my position is that since there was allegedly no Solar System until after plant life (including trees) were created (day 3). Consider also that having no Solar System, no sun and moon to determine length of days. Thus, all we would know is that the trees were older (perhaps significantly) than birds, fishes, animals and humans.Interestingly, the record does not mention insects. The implication is that they were created along with the plants since they would serve in the ecology of plant propagation.Further yet, I see RAZD, in his latest dendrocronolical science thread, emphasised the corroboration factor relative to dating. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I harp on corroboration incessantly, yet nobody pays any attention to the fact that there are numerous corroborating factors relative to the veracity of the Biblical record.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Too bad about that fossil record, isn't it.......It doesn't show that at all!

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

I understood the first part, but not the second. Sure, if the trees survived the Flood there wouldn't be any gaps. But why would this screw with carbon dating? Why would it even screw with dendrochronology? Ah yes, the "unique Buzsaw Hypothesis". Why is it so "unique"? Can't you even manage to convince your own fellow-creationists to swallow it? Except for the bits that we're actually arguing about. Sure, some things in the Bible are good history. But some of them appear to be fairy-stories. And the former do not corroborate the latter. I could take the Las Vegas phone directory and bind it in the same volume with Alice In Wonderland, but the unimpeachable accuracy of the telephone directory wouldn't support one word of the works of Lewis Carrol.

Short response, as I'm short on time:Tree rings can be counted, one by one, back into the past.Those rings vary in width from year to year depending on climate and such things as volcanic eruptions. Those leave very distinctive ring patterns.We can use a variety of trees, such as the standing deal bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California, and overlap the individual branches or trunks. While one tree may only get you a few hundred or a couple of thousand rings, by overlapping many parts of trees you can establish a ring sequence back to about 12,500 years from these particular trees (you can go farther back with some European oaks, but I am not as familiar with those).You can then establish the age, based on tree rings, of any particular ring.You can scrape up some material from that ring and radiocarbon date it. The two dates vary by less than 10% back to 12,500 years. This also allows you to correct for atmospheric variation, as the tree ring will be the most accurate, while due to atmospheric variation the radiocarbon date will be a little off. But by comparing the two dates you can figure out how far off and thus calibrate all future dates.This is just one method of verifying and calibrating radiocarbon dating. There are others.I hope this helps.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hey Buz. You say corroboration, when I think what you actually mean is self-validation. But correct me if I'm wrong here.For example, regarding the account of creation, biblical literalists will cite the beginning of the book of John, specifically vs. 1-3: Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, Buz, but is this what you meant? Attempting to verify the truth of the bible with...the bible? John (supposedly) said Jesus was present at creation, so this corroborates the Genesis account, correct? I'll let lie the various theories about who actually wrote the gospel of John, but if you're intending to be taken seriously here, you'll need to bring a little more to the discussion than, "This part of the bible says this other part here is true, so there's your corroboration."I'll be straightforward here, though Buz, there's not much in the good book that'll strengthen your case, scientifically speaking or otherwise. Like Dr. A said, there's some OK history if you look hard enough, but as far as science goes, bupkus. The closest anyone associated with creation came was when the RATE crew spent all those creationist-donated dollars and just ended up strengthening the old-earthers' case.Sorry. Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

No Buz means various alleged archeological finds validate what the bible allegedly says. He'll hit you up with the alleged discovery of chariot remains that allegedly prove the biblical exodus myth as fact and therefore prove that the invisible sky man exists.Basically Buz's position is that the actual historical stuff in the bible prooves the mythical stuff.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Perhaps. Perhaps bunnies had wings so that they could forage from the canopy, and weasels had turbine hearts that ran on swamp gas. Wouldn't that be fun. I'll show you twice as much evidence of turbine weasels that you show me for the flood. No trouble unless you just intend for me to type a lot for you to disregard; otherwise, I owe it to you to explain myself. One of the major problems with many of your positions is that they don't even pay attention to their own implications.As a tree grows it adds living layers just under the bark while wood farther in dies. The living rings accumulate carbon equal the the amount present in the biosphere: about 1ppt. The dead layers do not continue to sequester ¹⁴C. In other words, those rings carbon dating clocks have started. Regardless of the original amount of sequestered ¹⁴C it halves in 5,730 years. Assuming a constant starting value of ¹⁴C_o we can date each ring as N-8276ln(¹⁴C_o/¹⁴C_s)ya, where ¹⁴C_sis the sample value and N=now (2010). There are uncertainties and corrections but those can be ignored as they don't significantly affect the outcome of this argument.A 1000 year old tree will have its last clock start 1000 years after its first clock.Let us now say the flood happened 4,350 years ago, and that a tree that grew before the flood would have lived in a biosphere much lower in ¹⁴C then we would expect and consequently date older. For sake of argument say our tree sprouted 4,400ya by ring count dates to 10,000ya by carbon dating. We, therefore, think we erred by 5,600 years. Looking into it further, ring from our tree for 4,351ya by ring count would carbon date to 9,951ya. But after the flood when the atmospheric ¹⁴C was basically what it is now, a ring from 4,349ya by count would have an age of 4,349ya by carbon rather then 9,949ya. Where are the interim 5,600 years?A severe change in the level of ¹⁴C_o would not go unnoticed. You can not dignify your collection of ad hoc statements as an hypothesis, Buz. This isn't even English, Buz. That either. You've skipped two contentions and went right for the conclusion. And straight into a non-sequitur. Nobody pays any attention to your supposed corroborating factors because they are imaginary or trivial. The Bible's claim that Moses was floated in the river Nile is not corroborated by water running down hill.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Ah. I do remember reading about those remains. Found on a beach somewhere, yes? Some beach where no one except for Egyptian bad-guy pursuers would ever dare to take an ancient pleasure-trip?Never mind, then.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Not at all, Apothecus. By corroboration I'm talking about stuff you appear to have no knowledge of. I'm talking about the extensive exploration and research by men and women who discovered the significant amount of evidence for the Exodus crossing of the Red Sea which was allegedely a miraculous Biblical event. You need to apprise yourself on that by viewing the Exodus Video and reading the book, The Exodus Case by Lennart Moller, Swedish marine biologist who did a major part of the research with his scientific vessel equipped with underwater photograpical equipment etc.Before pshawing the corroborating evidence you need to read up on the fulfilled prophecy that Buzsaw has cited in various threads here at EvC and become knowledgeable of the historical events which were the fulfillment of these prophecies, particularly relating to the restoration of the nation of Israel and other phenomena relative to the prophesied last days.You need to become apprised on much other corroborating observable data relative to the veracity of the Biblical record. I've been into this stuff for 60+ years and I know whereof I speak on some of this, just as RAZD and some of the rest of the mainline science folks think they know whereof they speak.Before throwing out the Bible baby with the flood bathwater (no pun intended) you need to become aware of and consider some of this corroborating evidence.My understanding of RAZD's point on corroboration is that where questionable dating is encountered he alleges that there's enough corroborating other dating methods to overlook some of the questional aspects of weaker methods. I'm saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's why they don't last here. They have not done their homework on the prophecies and most are oblivious to the Exodus evidence etc. Furthermore most know more about the latest sports news than they do about this important stuff. I'm sorry to say most don't care. They think they will get raptured out of the world before the end time trouble hits them. All they are concerned is their salvation and winning the easy converts. One of my reasons for being here is that someone needs to show people like you that the flood event and other Biblical events like the Exodus crossing are not falacious fables. No, my friend. That's not what I do as I've tried to explain above. Click on my username and bring up my profile. Other than that, stay tuned. I do appreciate the good spirited manner in which you express your views and relate to people like me who's views you disagree with. I hope you find EvC a place to stay and bless us with your input, regardless of your ideology.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

OK, go for it, lyx2no. I've been in this debate for the long haul because I'm convinced of my position. Back in the ole days, the game wasn't over until Kate Smith (fat lady) sang and imo, she hasn't sang yet on the debate at hand. So long as by disregard you mean disbelieve, no I'll try not to waste your time. Quite often you type brief obscurities that sail right over the heads of simple folks like me. You're obviously a bright young chap who's learned a lot for your age and I respect that, having aspired to become a Biblical scholar as a youngster myself, though I'm just a sole proprieter of a small business and not a clergyman who's been run through the assembly line of the colleges and seminaries. The change would not be sudden and noticeable:1) As I have noted, likely, many of them would have survived the flood for the reasons I've stated.2) The level of 14C in the biosphere would gradually increase downline from the time of the flood.3) Many pre-flood trees likely lived for several thousand years after the flood, especially given that the current oldest tree (redwood) is over 4000 years old. . No more ad hoc than speculations like multiverses implicating space outside of a no outside of universe. It's in the English translation of the Bible. Whether you choose to ascribe to it is another matter. Ditto If you ignored my two contentions, how can you debunk my conclusions? How can you say so when you've ignored what preceeded? Youngun, you're studied and savvy on physics but cocky about your obvious ignorance relative to things you consider imaginary and trivial.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi other Doc. Where were you back when the evidence was debated to debunk the imperical evidence cited? I don't remember of any significant imput on your part in those debates.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

what was there to debate? Some photos of coral formations, big fucking deal. Was anything actually recovered?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor