Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Nope, the issue is for you to explain the correlations of the tree rings and the Egyptian artifacts having the same C14 levels for their independent chronological dates.You keep looking for rabbit holes, this is not one that needs to be followed, because there are 4 (count them four) independent tree ring chronologies that extend beyond 4500 years ago, and their age counts have been reported in peer reviewed articles and scrutinized for accuracy via their C14 correlations. It is a validated fact that these rings are accurate annual rings, and that is why they are used to calibrate C14 levels for use in dating things like the Egyptian artifacts. Irrelevant, the rings have been validated by scientists through the peer review process. It might be instructive for you to look at the papers discussing them. I can provide links to them if you are truly interested in learning rather than nit-picking. You can't see C14 in the tree rings, it has to be measured. The pattern of the measured levels generally follows an exponential curve, as shown in Message 906 above: for the 12,000 years covered by the dendrochronologies. The C14 levels are on a logarithmic scale, and the minor variations from from a straight line are due to variations in initial C14 levels in the atmosphere due to sun activity variations. The solar variations follow a general pattern as discussed here:

quote:

---

Age of the Earth, Part 3 - Radiometric and Cosmogenic Measuring Systems, Message 2, Tick Tock Solar Clock

​

... the Berillium-10 (¹⁰Be) levels tracked the "11-year Schwabe solar cycle," a pattern that also shows up in the Carbon-14 (¹⁴C) tree ring and lake varve chronologies.

​

Solar cycle⁽¹⁾

​

The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).

​

The changes on the sun cause effects in space, in the atmosphere, and on Earth's surface. While it is the dominant variable in solar activity, aperiodic fluctuations also occur.

​

The solar cycle was discovered in 1843 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who after 17 years of observations noticed a periodic variation in the average number of sunspots.[2] Rudolf Wolf compiled and studied these and other observations, reconstructing the cycle back to 1745, eventually pushing these reconstructions to the earliest observations of sunspots by Galileo and contemporaries in the early seventeenth century. ...The cycle's physical basis was elucidated by Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (the first detection of magnetic fields beyond the Earth). In 1919 they showed that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

​

• Is constant throughout a cycle;
• Is opposite across the equator throughout a cycle;
• Reverses itself from one cycle to the next.

​

Hale's observations revealed that the complete magnetic cycle spans two solar cycles, or 22 years, before returning to its original state. However, because nearly all manifestations are insensitive to polarity, the "11-year solar cycle" remains the focus of research.

​

While these aren't annual events, they are periodic, and the cyclic effect on the generation of ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be are recorded in tree rings and lake varves and ice cores, as peaks and valleys in the data record.

​

This "ticking of the solar clock" then provides another check on the accuracy and precision of the tree ring, lake varve, and ice core chronologies, and the consilience of all these systems agreeing with each other and the 11-year cyclic (Schwabe) pattern show a very high degree of accuracy and precision.

---

So that's another correlation you need to explain with your "past nature" fantasy. There is no evidence of fast growth in the tree ring chronologies, no evidence of a divergence from the C14 correlation at any point along the curve. There is not need to postulate a fantasy about fast growth when there is no evidence for it.Tree rings have different sections for different seasons, and if you don't have those different season sections in the rings, they are not annual rings.To make fantasy tree rings look like annual rings you would need to simulate seasonal changes every 4 minutes or so. There is no record in any history or mythology of such a weather pattern.That is objective empirical evidence that your postulated fast growth did not occur.You would also have to match that ring growth with changing C14 levels simultaneously around the world, and you would need a mechanism to accomplish this, matching precisely the exponential curve in the dendrochronology. Says the person who has presented any scientific evidence for his religious fantasy, and who thinks his opinion is as valid as scientific evidence based argument. It isn't. Curiously that is not what I said. What I said was that to produce a ring during your fantasy fast growth "past nature" that you would need to simulate a full seasonal cycle every ~4 minutes, because the rings have seasonal sections. Dendrochronologists use the seasonal growth to determine they are annual rings. LOL. Your opinion has no relevance to what I can or cannot do. The correlations are sufficient to validate the evidence for scientific use.If you want to challenge the science you need to provide evidence that it is wrong, not just jibber-jabber assertions of your fantasy world.You, on the other hand have a task that you have been shirking: explaining the correlations.Enjoy

Most of this post is non-sense and fails to address the correlations. For instance: Nope, the graphs plot the actually documented objective empirical evidence of measured actual C14 levels against the time scale for both the tree dendrochronology and the Egyptian artifacts.Nature is not involved. That you fail to understand the wiki article is no great surprise. Please show me where it talks about the the C14 dating using either parent or daughter levels. You can't because it doesn't. What it says is:

quote:

---

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years old. The technique was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[9] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the radioactivity of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram of pure carbon, and this is still used as the activity of the modern radiocarbon standard.[10][11] In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work.

​

One of the frequent uses of the technique is to date organic remains from archaeological sites. Plants fix atmospheric carbon during photosynthesis, so the level of 14C in plants and animals when they die approximately equals the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time. However, it decreases thereafter from radioactive decay, allowing the date of death or fixation to be estimated. The initial 14C level for the calculation can either be estimated, or else directly compared with known year-by-year data from tree-ring data (dendrochronology) up to 10,000 years ago (using overlapping data from live and dead trees in a given area), or else from cave deposits (speleothems), back to about 45,000 years before the present. A calculation or (more accurately) a direct comparison of carbon-14 levels in a sample, with tree ring or cave-deposit carbon-14 levels of a known age, then gives the wood or animal sample age-since-formation.

---

No mention of parent/daughter elements in a decay chain and their use in dating. Until you can show me that it was different and how that difference came to be, I have no need to assume that it has changed. That is how science works, not by fantasy or wishful thinking. Now add the 11 year solar cycle to the correlations that you have yet to explain (see Message 916) ...All the same non-sense over and over ad nauseum ... with no evidence of any change in the past.The correlations show this fantasy is not a viable belief. Hand waving is not an explanation.You have nothing to show, no evidence for a different nature, no evidence for a change in nature, no cause to take your rambling as worth considering in any scientific manner. Science uses evidence not fantasy.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

There are very good reasons to believe that radioactive decay has been the same since at least a short time after the Big Bang. Radioactive decay is governed by some of the most fundamental laws of the Universe. Any change would have wide-ranging consequences, many unexpected (unless you understand the physics).See these articles by physicist Steve Carlip, excellent summaries with references. The Constancy of Constants
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2And see Have physical constants changed with time?None of the phenomena associated with any change in radioactivity have been observed.

Are there any reasons to believe that the radioactive decay we experience here in the solar system area reflects what goes on far away?Light here exists a certain way, obeying OUR laws.

Yes. E.g. the oft-previously-mentioned characteristic light signatures and decay rates of radioactive elements in SN1987A. Please make some effort to keep up.Plus, as I said, radioactive decay is mediated by some of the most fundamental forces in the Universe. See previous links, especially the second Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nope, the graphs plot the actually documented objective empirical evidence of measured actual C14 levels against the time scale for both the tree dendrochronology and the Egyptian artifacts.

​

Nature is not involved.

---

False. Ridiculous. It is only because C14 exists today in a relationship with other things, that you offered it in the first place. How it is produced, where it comes from, how it interacts with other elements..etc etc. All of it depends on the forces and laws that exist..obviously.Since C14 is used for dating because it is radioactive in this case we need not look for parent daughter material. You still claim it exists as a result of...certain things."The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely."How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorksAs we can see, decay is assumed for the C14, and in fact is how the so called dates are derived. Same old one trick pony/religion.Now all you have to do is prove that the current nature existed along with decay in the unknown past! We tire of you merely assuming a present state/nature.What are you missing here??As for solar cycles, forget about it. Yes we have cycles now. Whether they were identical in the unknown past is not known. You merely attribute the currently seen cycles to the unknown nature of the past also. Religion. Religion. Religion.

Your first point involves artifacts from Egypt having some C14 that has the same pattern of C14 as trees from the era. This is no surprise. Whatever caused patterns in trees ought to also show up in stuff made from trees! Ha.
This issue is what nature existed, which would determine what the C14 was doing at the time, how it came to exist...etc etc.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

And we also have Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?Of course we are dealing with someone so under educated in science that he thinks his little wishing games are valid arguments. A prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

quote:

---

In the field of psychology, the Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]

---

What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it replicates exactly evidence for old age while being much younger, means that his god is a joker and a liar.Enjoy

Decay is observed. The curve of actual levels of C14 against the annual tree ring calendar age shows the distinct pattern of exponential decay.The actual levels of C14 measured in samples from the Egyptian artifacts and the matching chronological calendar age for the the tree rings are the same.So it doesn't matter what you believe about radioactive decay in general or C14 decay in particular, there is an observed decline in measured amounts in the tree rings as you go back in time, and when those same amount levels are also found in the Egyptian artifacts for the same age by the Egyptian chronology it shows they are from the same time -- no C14 age calculation needed, just objective empirical comparison of the actual measured amounts. Correction -- if you are going to claim that the past nature was different from the present, then you need to show how that is possible, what mechanism was involved.The claim is yours to defend.Science operates on evidence, and so far there is zero evidence of any significant change in physical constants in the past, and that means there is zero evidence to be considered by science. They are shown in the actual levels of C14 in the tree rings as you go back in time. They help produce the wiggle in the measured amounts that vary from a strict exponential curve. This is known objective empirical evidence.So your imaginary past nature perfectly mimics all the evidence of old age ... you must realize then that this makes your god a joker or a liar.Enjoy

So you agree that they are the same age, and that these ages correlate. Congratulations. And curiously, it is up to you to show that it was not due to actual age as measured annual ring by annual ring in the tree dendrochronology.Provide the evidence, provide the mechanism or admit you have nothing but fantasy.Enjoy

?? If the forces and laws the govern atoms changed, praytell, how would some halo in a rock be exempt from changing also?

Of course decay is observed. That does not mean it was observed in Noah's day.C14 is not good for dates except in this nature where we know it is a radioactive product behaving/relating to other elements a certain way.You may not simply assume nature was the same and date accordingly all based on what we now see happening. That is religion.Simply having some C14 present in tree rings does not tell us that the C14 was doing what it now does or radioactive etc etc. That would only be true as long as the nature we now observe was in place.By the way we do not need to nor would we be able to look at mechanisms of this current nature and try to use one /some of these to explain the different former nature. Edited by creation, : No reason given.

I would tend to agree that most likely furniture used by folks in very ancient Egypt not too long after the flood period would have been from that time. Even if the furniture was a few hundred years old, basically it was close enough so that we could think of it as from that time.Now I also would assume that trees and furniture even would exist from the time around any change in nature. After all Noah and others lived right through it!The nature change would not affect how furniture looked. What would change is the forces and laws, so that after the change some things maybe became radioactive, and the ways atoms behaved and interacted would have been different.

What is observed is the decay curve, not just the decay. Your magic mechanism must replicate that decay curve ring by ring ... including peaks in the wiggles every 11 rings ... Why not?You certainly have not provided any evidence or any reason to think otherwise.Just because you believe a fantasy made up scenario doesn't mean you need to be taken seriously. Until you can provide some evidence and show when this fantasy made up scenario occurred you cannot say that it is not the nature we now observe. That is your problem, not mine. Curiously I am asking for ANY specific mechanism, just that you get on with it and provide ONE and then do some 'splaining.Don't forget, it's the correlations that you need to explain.I expect to be amused by your explanation for the Egyptian chronology now that you have admitted it correlates with the tree ring chronology for C14 levels -- not just once but several times as shown on the graph.Your fast growth concept will make a lot of those dynasties whip by in hyper-fast motion ...Enjoy

What time was that purported flood again? What is your evidence that it occurred? I haven't seen or heard of any. Curiously there is no record I'm aware of for Noah observing a change in nature, but there is plenty of evidence of you making stuff up. Sorry, not only is there no observed change in nature for the correlations, there is also no observed change in the forces and laws of nature, and they have been tested.See JonF comments in Message 918 and Message 920, and then there is Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, which goes into some detail on what happens when you fiddle with these constants.So now you have another whole basket of things to explain, like how the Uranium halos form if there is a difference in the past nature from the current one.Better get busy.Enjoy