Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Curiously this babbling does not show any errors in the chronologies, nor does it deal with them having the same measured actual levels of C14 for the same age according to the chronologies. Using the actual C14 levels does not involve decay "dating" but objective empirical evidence.What you call "wiggle room" is the margin of error, and at only 1.9% it shows a strong correlation, one with high confidence in the precision of the age measurements.They correlate for the same age from two different chronologies, one Egyptian and one dendrochronological, the question for you is why.You have yet to provide any evidence for any change in nature in the past, so your arguments based of your fantasy are ... fantasy.You also have presented no evidence for a world wide flood. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the topic to present your evidence. I don't think you will, because there is none.Enjoy

Your graph descended into red lines near the crucial zone of 4500 years. I pointed out that the change was close to that time, most likely, so that any C14 would lose it's current meaning. Yes, atoms still did stuff and were in some process in that former nature one assumes. Yes, the daughter material and parent materials (except for what came to exist in this current nature) already existed also, and involved in whatever things they used to be involved with. You look at this nature, and how they are now involved in a decay process, and assume all material we see relates to and was a result of this!Having some carbon around the time of a nature change does not mean that that carbon was involved in a decay situation as it now would be.The evidence seems to show decreasing accuracy on your graph as we approach the change time.Your evidence is not valid to show a same nature in any way for that time.

The bible supports a different nature, in many ways. Science doesn't know either way. Guess what has the support then?

You provided zero information on the rings pre 4500 level. You cited claims about them. You previously claimed there would not even be all the rings, because of 'missing rings'.So when they cite an age, how many actual rings are there?Remember, that if a tree grew in a few weeks complete with rings, that those rings at the time would represent far different times than what rings today do.The whole issue seems to be over a few hundred rings which we can't get a clear answer from you if they even exist or are missing!

" Last Thursdayism"? Just wow. That is a new one on EvC, haven't seen that one before.Edited by 1.61803, : edit on to one

Except that I added those red lines to show all the possible correlations to the C14 levels in the artifacts, and this shows the range of dates applicable to the correlation, as noted in the post:

quote:

---

Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:

---

Color added for emphasis. You should read the context. No, you blandly asserted a personal belief that it was, one that you have provide no evidence for or any other support. You cannot claim there was a change without evidence -- that's making up fantasy, not factual argument. There is no evidence of a "former nature" and all you are doing is posting wishful thinking, not a fact based argument. C14 does not occur as a result of decay of a parent material, and the daughter material is not used, rather the level of C14 is compared to the level of total Carbon (isotopes -12, -13, and -14). From Message 4 of this thread:

quote:

---

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.

​

carbon | Infoplease (1)

​

quote:

---

Carbon has 13 known isotopes, which have from 2 to 14 neutrons in the nucleus and mass numbers from 8 to 20. Carbon-12 was chosen by IUPAC in 1961 as the basis for atomic weights; it is assigned an atomic mass of exactly 12 atomic mass units. Carbon-13 absorbs radio waves and is used in nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry to study organic compounds. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is a naturally occurring isotope that can also be produced in a nuclear reactor.

---

​

The method (8)

​

quote:

---

Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.

---

​

How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)

​

quote:

---

Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

---

​

This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta^- decay:

​

Glossary Term - Beta Decay (7)

​

quote:

---

During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of nitrogen (with 7 protons).

---

​

Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.

​

The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:...

​

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to C-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.

​

These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

​

404 Page not found (9)

​

quote:

---

---

​

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed ...

---

The C14 reverts to the N14 when it decays, and the levels of N14 are not used in C14 dating methodology (which would be silly due to the amount ov N14 in the atmosphere). So thanks for displaying your ignorance on the process you are then claiming to modify through a "former nature" fantasy.There is no sudden - or even gradual - change in the slope of the curve for the actual measured levels of C14 when graphed against the dendrochronological ages from counting annual rings. Not at 4,500 years, not at any point on the graph. Blah, blah, blah ... your jibber-jabber is meaningless without documented evidence of a change in nature. There was no change in the evidence from tree rings, so logically there was no change in the "nature" of the world.Just like there is no evidence of a world wide flood at these times -- an event that would have disrupted the samples of wood used in the dendrochronologies because wood floats and long term floods kill trees. Nope, what you are looking at is a small section with higher magnification than shown on the curve above. Looking at that curve there is no "decreasing accuracy" in that area. Sorry, what it shows is a lack of "different nature" at any time along the above curve that is based on tree ring counts.We can extend that curve with similar annual layer counts of lake varves from Lake Suigetsu in Japan to the limits of usable C14 detection, as noted in Message 5 of this thread:

quote:

---

In the case of the Lake Suigetsu Lake Varves they present a calibration curve as well, and we can use this to represent the Carbon-14 environment in the same way we did for the tree-rings - as an indicator of what the levels of Carbon-14 were when the organic samples were alive and growing.

​

Just a moment... (3)

​

quote:

---

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

---

​

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles and their match to the green tree-ring data. We can note in passing, however, that the other data (red open squares and triangles) span from the dendrochronology to the lake chronology, and operate as a validating correlation link between them.

---

Still no sudden (or gradual) change in the slope of the curve, and now we have added another correlation to be explained.Enjoy

Curiously, most people consider quotes from peer reviewed scientific papers as providing information about the contents of those papers, and that providing links lets you check that the information quoted is correct. Again with the misunderstanding of the actual message. The Prometheus tree was cut down in 1964 and the earliest ring from that tree was 4,844 years ago, so the tree stump shows 4844 - (2018-1964) = 4,790 annual rings (ie - includes 4,500 years ago), but it doesn't show the complete age of the tree because the central portion had rotted away. That means the tree age given is a minimum age because we do not know how many of those center rings are missing. So only the known age is used.This is only the case in this one →1← tree, while the dendrochronology uses many trees to cross-check and validate the ring counts, and there are four chronologies that come from different areas but agree on ring count ages.This has been explained to you. Focusing on details like this (a) does not invalidate the tree ring age, (b) does not provide any evidence of a different "nature" in the past, and (c) does not explain the correlations. It's just wasted bandwidth. One ring for every year of age, a very simple simple concept, children can understand this. There is nothing I need to "remember" about your fantasy and the complete lack of evidence. Except that the physical characteristics of annual rings do not allow for this. You would need a full cycle of seasons to form a annual ring and you just do not have enough time to do that when you grow the whole tree in a couple weeks. 4500 season cycles in 14 days, 321 per day, 13 per hour. 4.5 minutes per ring with new growth section, mature growth section, and shut-down-for-winter section. Ludicrous.Note that this also means that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere would have to change world wide every 4.5 minutes, which is also ludicrous.There is absolutely no mention of 321 seasons per day in the historical texts. Fantasy meet reality. Nope, it appears it is just you not comprehending what is provided. Or you are intentionally misrepresenting the information provided.Enjoy

I vote for intentionally misrepresentating stuff he doesn’t understand.

So, you don't have anything, yes?

Scripture tells us what the world was like a little bit, in the days of Noah, and before. Noah sent out a bird looking for trees after the flood. A week later...no trees. Again, another bird was sent...voila..fresh leaf from a tree. That is fast growing!In the garden of Eden, God planted stuff. The same week man ate fruit from trees. That is fast.That may be news to EVC, but not to mankind.

I have it all. Science not knowing, and Scripture. History also.

Curiously, when you cite missing rings, we ask for details as to how many hundreds of ring exactly were missing? I see later in this post you clear that up. Now the issue is for you to focus in on the 2 or 300 rings that do exceed the 4500 level.What about THEM? Do they look the same? Got a pic? What pattern exactly of C14 in those rings do you see?Fortunately for my views. it doesn't matter anyhow since trees grew fast!But I thought you would at least try to go down fighting.It is simple to comprehend that if trees grew fast a ring was NOT a year. So any similar patterns in dead tress in the vicinity of trees living, from the time of a nature change....would not represent years either.Your so called correlations are truly religious fantasies.Your idea that a former nature that was different would require the same time to produce a similar looking ring is ridiculous. To claim that because our nature would not allow for it is to do nothing more than to pretend our nature existed then. Prove it first, or you may not use it.Ha

razd

quote:

---

Except that I added those red lines to show all the possible correlations to the C14 levels in the artifacts, and this shows the range of dates applicable to the correlation, as noted in the post:

​

quote:
Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:

---

Possible correlations with the furniture of the day? Ha.

quote:

---

No, you blandly asserted a personal belief that it was, one that you have provide no evidence for or any other support. You cannot claim there was a change without evidence -- that's making up fantasy, not factual argument.

---

You baldly assert it was the same and offer no evidence. Your graphs assume a same nature. I do not baldly assert anything, I try to look at what the actual records of the time were from basically the only record man has of the time. It happens to be at odds with your bald faced assertions.

quote:

---

... Yes, the daughter material and parent materials ...
C14 does not occur as a result of decay of a parent material, and the daughter material is not used, rather the level of C14 is compared to the level of total Carbon (isotopes -12, -13, and -14). From Message 4 of this thread:

---

You better correct wiki I guess."Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues to date archaeological, geological and hydrogeological samples. "
WikipediaSo it is used for dating because it is now radioactive. You see, you apparently assume it also was then? Why? The relationship of parents and daughters..what decays into what...would probably be a feature of our present nature.

quote:

---

quote:
Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)

---

Can you show that C14 was unstable in the past?

quote:

---

quote:
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay:

​

Glossary Term - Beta Decay (7)

---

In the current nature, this is how it works. Irrelevant to the former nature unless you claim it was the same and can prove it!

quote:

---

The C14 reverts to the N14 when it decays, and the levels of N14 are not used in C14 dating methodology (which would be silly due to the amount ov N14 in the atmosphere). So thanks for displaying your ignorance on the process you are then claiming to modify through a "former nature" fantasy.

---

Whatever reverts to something now in this nature does so...in this nature! What happens in this state..stays in this state.

quote:

---

There is no sudden - or even gradual - change in the slope of the curve for the actual measured levels of C14 when graphed against the dendrochronological ages from counting annual rings. Not at 4,500 years, not at any point on the graph.

---

I think we got that many posts ago. Not sure what you are missing here. The level of C14 does not mean a thing unless we have the current nature in place. Nothing wrong with C14. What is wrong is that you try to ask us to believe that it existed in the atomic relationship/decay process/ that is is now in! Why? Says who?Once again your so called correlations are shown to all stem from ONE belief.

quote:

---

Blah, blah, blah ... your jibber-jabber is meaningless without documented evidence of a change in nature. There was no change in the evidence from tree rings, so logically there was no change in the "nature" of the world.

---

The evidence of a nature change is not in the tree and it's levels of C14. You have provided no evidence nature was the same! Until you do your jibber jabber must and will remain religion.

quote:

---

Just like there is no evidence of a world wide flood at these times -- an event that would have disrupted the samples of wood used in the dendrochronologies because wood floats and long term floods kill trees.

---

Says you. In other words science cannot read evidences very well.If there were evidences, say the KT layer and iridium, science would simply miss it and imagine it was something else. All the interpretations of science are narrow minded belief based exercises in trying to make evidences fit into their religion.

quote:

---

Sorry, what it shows is a lack of "different nature" at any time along the above curve that is based on tree ring counts.

---

If we believed in a same state past nature we might look at the rings as if the C14 meant that certain ages existed. I am open minded and honest, so I simply ask that if you claim such a same nature in the past, and wish to use that belief for age claims...that you first prove it! Otherwise you are using belief only and engaged in circular belief.Trying to insert radioactive decay based dates into other things such as varves or etc...is of course also circular beliefs.

Creation you are debating in a science forum.
Well, actually trolling in a science forum and sadly it seems we are just bored enough to engage you.

I like the one where Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold.