Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Is that supposed to be more specific?You aren't coming anywhere near suggesting how this might work. You want to postulate multiple growing seasons in a year, but you are leaving it up to my imagination to figure out how that could have happened.This is your scenario. You made up the explanation, so you should be telling us how it works. If that is your position, then perhaps you should do the checking before you assert that the scientists are wrong.The funny part of this is that we are just messing around with dating methods that are good for 50k years or so. The earth is 4.5+ billion years old.

Hi once again Jzyehoshua, The topic issue is the correlations on dates derived by different means, with an emphasis on methods that involve annual counting systems. Yes. Perhaps you should read the different posts to see. The scientists involved have done the work independently of one another, what I have done here is assemble them in one place to show the correlations.Scientists are not at all worried about finding "any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth" as that has been done for some time to the satisfaction of science: the age of the earth is over 4.55 billion years according to the latest available information.It is just creationists that seem to have a problem recognizing this fact. This is a small minority of people in the world. Gosh, science refining the conclusions on the age of the earth based on new information ... what a shocking development ... or not. We still end up with a result of a minimum age of the earth of 4.55 billion years. Feel free to contact Brent Dalrymple to see if he agrees. Fantasy on top of fantasy. Making up stories that demonstrate to you that "all 3 would be thrown off" curiously does not explain the correlations.Four dendrochonologies from different global locations, different ecologies and different species correlate within 0.5%.The dendrochronologies also correlate for the 14C/12C ratios at the same ages.The dendrochronologies also correlate with the Lake Suigetsu varves and with the 14C/12C ratios of organic items deposited in the varves for the same ages as the tree rings..The 14C/12C ratios follow the standard exponential decay curve for at least 35,000 years. Message 5.The climate effects on the 14C/12C ratios also correlate with the climates shown in the tree rings.Why do these all correlate to the same ages? Events in the distant past, well beyond the ages of the tree rings, Lake Suigetsu varves, and ice cores, with the most recent occurring ~65 million years ago.This is irrelevant to this topic because they occurred before the ages being discussed ... unless you accept their age? Again, older than the times discussed in this topic. We also know that the ecology was different then, but that is still irrelevant to the issue of correlations of the dating methodologies discussed in this thread. Again, made up fantasy does not refute evidence, and you have not explained how the mechanisms involved create the correlations seen in the data. Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes used, when no variation with depth is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Agreed -- it should wipe out the patterns observed not create them. This is evidence that the flood did NOT occur. Floods do not lay down multiple layers of fine silt mixed with clay alternating with layers of diatom shells. You can test this: get some diatomaceous earth from a gardening store, mix it with fine clay from a pottery store, and then mix it with a lot of water so that the diatoms and clay are suspended and distributed throughout, and then try various ways to shake and rattle the container to alter the deposition of the diatoms and clay particles. Have fun. Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, when no variation with depth is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Why? How much? Be specific how volcanic activity change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes involved, when no significant variation is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Another creationist fantasy unsupported by evidence. If this hypothesis had any validity we should see tons of fossils forming at the bottom of the oceans -- all they need to do is sink and bingo: fossils. Curiously this does not occur. Sadly it also is not relevant to the issue of correlations of the age measuring methods. And sadly, for you, you have failed entirely to show how the correlations occur, why they get the same ages, not just a jumble of different old ages. All you have done is thrown a lot of mud, and unfortunately (for you), none of it is sticking: the correlations still show that the earth is old.In summary, creationist fantasy, claiming miracles due to a flood they cannot show occurred, is not an explanation for the correlations observed in the data.And we've only begun to discuss the methods used to measure ages well beyond any young earth fantasy.Enjoy.

Which raises another question - does the Bible say the earth itself is young? Genesis 1:2 says the earth was empty and void. The solar day apparently didn't exist until the 4th day when the sun and planets were created so any length of time could've passed earlier.There's a reason I'm not debating the age of the earth but the age of life's beginning on earth specifically.

I realize there have been a lot of responses to your posts, but you haven't yet responded to my post, Message 120, which contains evidence that:

1) your contention regarding the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region is incorrect, leading to

​

2) the contention that you made regarding accelerated nuclear decay is incorrect, and further,

​

3) there was, based on archaeological and genetic evidence, no global flood during the past 10,000 years.

I would appreciate a reply if time permits.

Hi Jzyehoshua, Which, as I explain in Message 137 does not address the correlations, it's just made up fantasy. And seeing as the four dendrochronologies correlate within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years it should be obvious that your objections are just your simplistic imagination and not apply to the actual science and work involved. As noted in Message 2:

quote:

---

Note three things: the tree rings contain climate data, the chronology is not based on one sample but many overlapping and duplicate (from the same tree) samples, and there are other samples that have not been counted yet or that have a break in the climate data that means they are "floating" in the chronology somewhere beyond the end of the continuous record. Adding up all the time recorded by these tree rings would give us a minimum age of the earth for all those years to have passed that generated the rings. We'll be minimalist here and say:

​

Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.

---

If you disagree you can contact Henri D. Grissino-Mayer at the University of Tennessee Department of Geography. I found him quite approachable. I'm sure that he would be impressed by your grasp of his profession.Enjoy.

You'd have to ask a Bible literalist about that. I don't believe that the earth as a planet predates the existence of the sun. Perhaps the earth being void and without form is a poetic expression describing the disk of gas and supernova dust from which the solar system was formed.

Hi Jzyehoshua, you seem to be missing the point here Sadly, for you, Message 124 does not show HOW the correlations occur, it is just an ad hoc pile of fantasy concepts, with no evidence, and no demonstration of any direct effect. You may just as well say god-did-it.You may think this explains things to your satisfaction, but it is completely inadequate here. This is a science thread. You have not explained HOW the correlations happen to match to such degree of accuracy, and you have not produced any evidence of the changes you think occurred. HOW does the " mechanism you and others wanted" actually work? HOW does it change decay rates? HOW does it change tree rings, lake varves and the ratio of 14C/12C?You can't just wave your hands and invent fantasy and expect us to applaud: what is the scientifically testable mechanism and what is the evidence that supports it? No you haven't, all you have done is make silly statements that enable your denial of the facts, statements that are contradicted in the posts you refer to.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, Contact a dendrochronologist and tell them what you think. Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for climate changes and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.The curve of 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age generally matches the normal exponential decay curve for 14C, while showing some effects of climate change that also show in the tree rings.This means that the method has been validated to within 99.5% accuracy. No, that's where you stand ... in denial of the evidence already provided.Enjoy.

You are referring mainly to your Message #3, right? Many of your links don't work. The 1st gives just general info. The 2nd just gives a Table of Contents with links that require subscriber access. The 3rd doesn't work at all. Your main quote about "The Holocene part of the 14c calibration" appears entirely unreferenced. Your key links in Message 4 at the beginning don't work either.To verify claims dendrochronology can date back 10,000 years or more, I need to find some good sources for this claim. Here is one from BBC saying 5,000 years is possible:BBC - BonekickersHere is an example of problems found in Dendrochronology, where tree rings which had been matched were discovered to fit at multiple times:Radiocarbon DatingSome useful basic info on Dendrochronology I found here. It appears to be mostly pretty recent research, all done within the past 50 years or so.Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings Calibration
Page not found | M.A. in Art History PresentsAn informative quote is found here:

quote:

---

A further dilemma is the fact that two tree-ring series never agree completely, but they are similar to each other only to a certain degree. This similarity is quantified by two parameters, the ‘Gleichlufigkeitswert’ W (Eckstein & Bauch 1969) and the t-value (Baillie & Pilcher 1973). The question, how a weak similarity between two actually contemporaneous tree-ring patterns can be separated from a high coincidence similarity, is simple to answer: it is impossible. Nevertheless dendrochronology is a reliable dating method. Why? The always used basic principle for the building of tree-ring chronologies and their application for datings is called replication. It should be illustrated by an example (Baillie 1983): If two tree-ring patterns A and B are similar to each other and a third tree-ring series C is found, which is similar to A, then C must be similar also to B at the same position; all further tree-ring patterns, which are similar to A, must be similar to B and C, etc. The reliability of a dendrochronological dating is based on these repeated agreements and mutual controls during the building of a chronology and, as much as possible, with each dating.

---

http://www.bfafh.de/inst4/42/dendro1.htm#kap3.3

Hi once again Jzyehoshua It wasn't an answer and that wasn't a theory.A scientific theory is based on evidence and has been tested.Logical delusion is not scientific, nor a theory.You have not explained HOW they change and WHY they correlate and WHAT your experimental evidence is that validates it.Enjoy.

I just noticed CreationWiki has a reply to a TalkOrigins article on the subject of missing rings:Dendrochronology is suspect because 2 or more rings can grow per year - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science(Talk.Origins)
CB501: Multiple tree rings per yearIt appears there are multiple potential issues with Dendrochronology that may explain why it isn't more publicly accepted (Googling the term gets just 441,000 results - by comparison a Google of 'Jzyehoshua gets 34,900 results).1. Two or more tree rings can grow each year.
2. Missing tree rings account for 5-20% (accounts differ) of a tree's rings.
3. Tree rings can match one another 99% + statistically for different periods centuries apart.Radiocarbon DatingEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

One of the best Creationist articles on the subject is at Answers in Genesis. It mostly agrees that Dendrochronology appears well cross-matched but does offer one alternative hypothesis on time-staggered repeat disturbances. Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis There's a decent paper here as well questioning whether weaknesses in the tree ring ladder may exist where dependence is on a few trees.http://www.thischristianjourney.com/...es/Dating_Methods.htmA guide to Dendrochronological analysis is here:http://dendro.cornell.edu/manuals/howto-english.pdfThere's some interesting info here also:http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_4.htmIt sounds like ring growths can alter based on a number of factors though, including forest density and even whether the tree grew on a slope, resulting in different ring densities in different parts of the tree.

I ran a Google News search to see what major news sources had to say on the subject (search here - Click News on left sidebar instead of 'Everything') and came across something VERY interesting.Turns out Bristlecones have been growing very rapidly in California and Nevada for the past 50 years (basically the same time Dendrochronology's been around) so they assume the rates sped up recently, rather than considering that their ancient dates for the past could be wrong:

quote:

---

We may think of climate change killing off species or destroying habitat. Now, a twist: Tree researchers studying bristlecone pines in California and Nevada have found those trees growing over the last 50 years at a faster rate than at any other period in the last 3,600 years. They were looking at trees at an elevation of almost 12,000 feet at the upper tree line...

​

Prof. HUGHES: In the last few decades, they're getting fatter rings than they've had for about 3,600 years. This is a very unusual event. It exists only in the trees near their upper limit, not in the trees just a few hundred feet lower down the mountain. So the mystery was why on earth is this happening?

​

BLOCK: And how have you resolved that mystery, or have you?

​

Prof. HUGHES: It was early a thought, 20 or so years ago, that this was probably mainly the result of there being more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Our results concerning the pattern of where the trees are going faster and where they are not is not consistent with that explanation, and that leads us to look for another explanation. The most likely one is the increase in temperature that has taken place over the 20th century for whatever reason, and we've got some evidence that strongly suggests that that's a big part of the story.

---

Higher Temperatures May Be Behind Pine Growth : NPRIt's also mentioned here:Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di IndonesiaI also found this showing a case where trees which are supposed to be 1,000 years old were dated at younger ages:The millennium-old olive trees of the Iberian Peninsula are younger than expected | Science CodexEdited by Jzyehoshua, : doesn't show News search for some reason

RAZD and others have been providing you with correlations among a variety of dating methods, while you have been providing nothing but "what-ifs" in reply. "What-ifs" are imagined reasons why things might not be as scientists have determined, provided with no supporting data.Example: Scientist: The sky is blue. Creationist: But what if it was pink in the past?Here is an article that should take care of a lot of your what-ifs, if you are honest about research: Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine coralsRichard G. Fairbanks, et al.

Abstract: Radiocarbon dating is the most widely used dating technique in the world. Recent advances in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and sample preparation techniques have reduced the sample-size requirements by a factor of 1000 and decreased the measurement time from weeks to minutes. Today, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of all measurements made on accelerator mass spectrometers are for radiocarbon age dates. The production of 14C in the atmosphere varies through time due to changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field intensity and in its concentration, which is regulated by the carbon cycle. As a result of these two variables, a radiocarbon age is not equivalent to a calendar age. Four decades of joint research by the dendrochronology and radiocarbon communities have produced a radiocarbon calibration data set of remarkable precision and accuracy extending from the present to approximately 12,000 calendar years before present. This paper presents high precision paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C age determinations on pristine coral samples that enable us to extend the radiocarbon calibrationcurve from 12,000 to 50,000 years before present. We developed a statistical model to properly estimate sample age conversion from radiocarbon years to calendar years, taking full account of combined errors in input ages and calibration uncertainties. Our radiocarbon calibration program is publicly accessible at: sonny apache server along with full documentation of the samples, data, and our statistical calibration model.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0277379105001654 Fig. 3. Our coral calibration curve plotted with 1% confidence limits (corresponds to 3σ uncertainties for normal distributions) and coral data plotted with 1σ error bars. Calibration curve is compared to the tree ring chronologies (Reimer et al., 2004; Friedrich et al., 2004).------------------------The above is a calibration curve made from two tree ring chronologies and a coral series.At this point you should be starting to get the idea that there is some real science behind these dating methods, and that the creationists' examples are all based on "what-ifs" with no supporting data--especially when multiple dating methods agree as closely as they do.

This post contains no evidence that tree-ring dating is unreliable.Your first example shows that some bristlecone pines are growing faster now than in the past. For dating purposes, what would matter is whether they are growing more, or fewer, rings. This study notes that some of the trees are growing thicker rings. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate.Your second example discussed trees thought, from visual inspection, to be at least 1,000 years old. Tree-ring dating showed they were younger. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate.You really need to select your examples with some care that they actually support your arguments.