Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue.

Hi JonF I agree, especially when you consider the correlations, that is a pretty tough argument to make. Which is also why I want to shift the scam part of the argument to the proper scam thread where people have already (I believe) addressed it.Enjoy.

What about the J's comments related to dendrochronology? I think those are comments are related to dating.

J suggests that the tree ring data appears to correlate with other aging data because the tree ring data is phony. If that proposition is off topic here, then the scope of the discussion on age correlations is extremely narrow.I don't believe J can make his case, but I think compartmentalizing objections so that only certain types of arguments can be made in this thread is the wrong way to go about it.But it occurs to me that I am way too meta to be on topic, so I'll knock it off.

Hi NoNukes, The problem he has, is that there are three independent tree ring chronologies that would all have to be jiggered the exact same way, along with the correlations in them for absolute values of 13C/12C and 14C/12C, AND the correlation of peaks in the 14C/12C data that match the solar cycles that affect 14C production.That is a very hard nut to crack, imho, with just some 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of emails -- he's going to need more than that, he's going to need empirical data to show it is wrong.Enjoy.

Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology.

That may indeed be all that can be shown from the emails, but here is what J says about them:

[qs]I've already demonstrated that he's not a reliable source on this subject; he thinks that measuring decay of 18O (a stable isotope) is a dating method, and a few other show-stopper errors that slip my mind at the moment.If he shows some interest in learning, I'll be glad to explain in more detail.

To me, one of the things that helps to establish the validity of RC dating is the way the Lake Suigetsu dates vary from a straight line correlation with the varve count by a steady few percent. Either a real effect is being reported, or the researchers agreed to put in the variation to make it look as though they were measuring something. Also there are reported plateaus in RC dates at around 450-750 BC, and 8000-9000 BC. Why report this if you were fudging the results? Similarly, the study in the Cariaco Basin showed a rapid rise in C14 age from 34,000-41,000 BP with a 2000 increase in varves. Seems like real results are being reported, regardless of the many correlations with other methods
,

The information presented here is amazing. The Bible account in Genesis allows for a very old earth.

But the Bible accounts in Genesis are also factually wrong. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Hi revelation, and welcome to the fray. Thank you. It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly.This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results.Enjoy.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying this idea of dating things is outside the Site's intended consideration of Evolution Vs Creationism, and only the techniques of Modern day dating are under discussion?Is this a part of the site where the science people get their science straight among themselves, and some other location exists for the Creationism people?It occurs to me that though Genesis is open to private interpretations, it does establish some links between the geological and biological events it enumerates and the time line of seven "days" which could be understood as the same geological rock layers we use radioactive dating to identify in regard to age.My point being that things like first life appearing in a Spontaneous Generation during the third "day" coorelated one-to-one with science Abiogenesis in the Archeozoic "evening"/Proterozoic "morning" Eras.Now disregard this idea if this thread is purely a scientific review for us science people so we are all on the same page about our particular disciplines. [/B](I agree, it is good that such lesson be examined by the science side of these discussions so the real facts are clear to all science minded people posting here.)

Hi kofh2u This is not a thread to discuss interpretations of the biblical accounts, although that could be an interesting thread on it's own.This thread is to discuss the correlations in results from all the systems/methodologies covered in the OP. This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist. As noted above, this could make an interesting topic on it's own.Enjoy.

So this is the place where one MUST either say the Bible contradicts science and there science is wrong, or conversely, that the Bible says is wrong because science contradicts people who SAY what the Bible says, not what it DOES say.The fact that it is way long later, in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hoiur day is even created makes no difference in this ridiculous limitation to people whose reading comprehension is so poor and science people who want to pull their pants down here without my too cents?How convenient to lies on both sides.