Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Nope. Each ring is compared with ones today that show seasonal patterns of growth. That they show matching patterns of seasonal growth means we conclude they are annual rings. Then we test that conclusion with evidence from the past, and when the evidence from the past validates the annual tree ring age, we conclude that the system is accurate in measuring age.No belief involved. Amusingly, you still have not shown that Shaw's chronology is incorrect, so choke on it all you want, the evidence he used was a mixture and it used a consensus of dates from Egyptologists on what the kings list meant and when. This has been pointed out before, but you seem unable or unwilling to understand.Again, however, laughing at the evidence does not change the correlation, which you have yet to explain as other than them both showing the artifacts are from the same age.You have not shown that either one is erroneous in reaching that age, nor how both could reach the same age by two entirely different systems without it being representative of actual old age. Your inability to understand the difference between religion and science is not my problem. This inability is what leads you to false conclusions. Dunning Kruger effect.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

1. they would much more likely have wider rings rather than multiple rings
2. if they did have multiple rings, then they would not likely have seasonal sections of the rings
3. if they did appear like annual rings, then there would need to be climate changes consistent with summer and winter periods occurring multiple times a day.

This is not recorded in any history or religious or any other document, which means you are making it up to bolster your belief.That is not how science is done, this is a science thread and you need to support your position with objective empirical evidence. In other words you have no answer to how the Egyptian chronology was modified by a different nature yet still correlates with the tree rings for the same measured age of the artifacts.That means you are unable to explain the correlations with a fantasy different nature.Epic fail. You've joined the ranks of other creationists that have failed to explain the correlations.This is a science thread, and denial of evidence is not a scientific argument.Curiously I see you use your own version of a "kings list" in Message 965: Here's the image: The differences between this and the Egyptian Kings List are:

1. We know which Egyptian kings actually lived,
2. We know when they lived,
3. We know how long these kings lived from documents in their tombs,
4. There is no objective evidence that any person on your list actually lived
5. There is no objective evidence for how long any of them purportedly lived
6. Your list has no attachment to any actual point in time
7. There is no archaeological evidence of any person older than 100 years.

Your king list is a made-up fantasy with no relation to reality, and you mock the Egyptian list that is based on actual objective empirical evidence.Pathetic. You have no clue what real evidence involves. All I have done is observe that the two systems correlate for the ages of the artifacts.Dismissing the evidence as a joke is a sign of cognitive dissonance -- your inability or unwillingness to accept or deal with what the evidence shows -- AND it is not a refutation of the conclusion of old age, nor of the correlations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

Because (a) that is what happens with fast growing trees, and (b) because during fast growth fantasy time there would not be enough time for variations in climate to simulate annual rings. Not enough time. That only gets you 360 potential rings and you need thousands. That means several cycles per day, not one. You have other problems:Day and night are not enough variation to produce simulated summer/winter growth patterns when rings cells normally take more than a day to grow.Plus again there is no mention of hot days and freezing nights in your source material and trees today do not go into stasis during freezing nights (think maple syrup and what causes the sap to run). There was no Babel. That's mythology not fact. You have no evidence that your "God's account" is anything but myth. The Egyptians have tombs and artifacts, but you have squat. Myths are myths, not fact. That does not explain how the Egyptian chronology has the same dates for the artifacts as the tree rings when correlated by C14 content ... which you also have not explained. Not reading for comprehension are you? We know which Egyptian kings lived because of the artifacts and tombs. The spirit kings are beyond the end of the Shaw Chronology and your continued red herring use of them is laughable. Curiously not the tombs that we are dealing with for the artifacts that were found, guess where ... in the tombs of the kings that actually lived maybe? Which is irrelevant to the kings where the artifacts were found in their tombs. More red herring lack of ability to follow context. The artifacts in question are from the Old Kingdom, the third dynasty, not any earlier than that. This makes your continued railing on about spirit kings pointless and irrelevant babble.The tombs are objective empirical evidence as are the artifacts that were found in them. The point in time we are interested in is (from previously}: Try this instead: List of Pharaohs ... page down to the Old Kingdom, notice the dates on the left.Notice that 2660 BCE is the Third Dynasty. The beginning of the documentation with actual ages according to the objective empirical evidence used by the Egyptologists in this chronology..No question marks there.Meanwhile ... your pseudo kings list is fantasy built on fantasy. I notice that you didn't mention it in your reply ... possibly because you know you have no objective empirical evidence to support it.Your attempt to foist this fable table on us and expect it to be taken seriously when you deny and mock the well supported Egyptian chronology data shows you are not debating facts. It puts all your arguments in question when you prefer fantasy documents to factual ones.Once again your argument fails to explain the correlation. Fantasy is not an explanation.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

This is all garbage assertion after garbage assertion and not a shred of evidence to support it. Your fantasy multiple rings -- hundreds every day -- just doesn't work. Get over it. Try something new, because this is a big FAIL on your part:

• it doesn't explain the tree rings with summer/winter seasonal portions of each ring (night/day is not enough) that nobody noticed in any documents or myths,
• it doesn't help you explain the correlation with the Egyptian chronology,
• it doesn't help you explain the C14 content in each ring differing from the ring before and after,
• it doesn't help you explain the same C14 content in trees the other side of the earth from the Bristlecone pines - the oaks in Germany and Ireland - for the same age ring when you are mixing the air up every 4 minutes it takes you to grow enough rings, and
• it doesn't help you explain the 11 year solar sun-spot cycle peaks in the C14 data.

... it is the little details that show your fantasy is pure made-up hokum without a shred of supporting evidence. Ignoring these details doesn't make them go away. ... pure fantasy without a shred of empirical objective evidence to support it and that is why the bible/scripture is not considered evidence on science threads. Not only does this show the stump with 4,790 annual rings going from 1964 back to 4,844 years ago, but this is open to the public to go and photograph and touch and count the rings on their own.So you have been answered. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this is not my problem. And this hand-waving explains nothing. It doesn't explain the variations recorded in the rings. What is used is the section of the chronology with absolute ages based on consensus evaluation by Egytologist. The older portion of the list may contain real pharaoh data, but without absolute dates they can't be used on this thread.This is similar to excluding the dead standing sentinels with over 7,000 annual rings - we don't have the absolute connection, so we can't use them for developing absolute chronologies. That doesn't look like a taper to me. I also note that the oldest is 120 years, an age which is possible today.

quote:

---

Oldest people

​

This is a list of tables of the oldest people in the world in ordinal ranks. To avoid including false or unconfirmed claims of extreme old age, names here are restricted to those people whose ages have been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) or Guinness World Records (GWR), and others who have otherwise been reliably sourced.

​

According to this criterion, the longest human lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875—1997), who lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days. She met Vincent van Gogh when she was 12 or 13.[1] She received news media attention in 1985, after turning 110. Subsequent investigation found documentation for Calment's age, beyond any reasonable question, in the records of her native city, Arles, France.[2] More evidence of Calment's lifespan has been produced than for any other supercentenarian, such that her case serves as an archetype in the methodology for verifying the ages of the world's oldest people.[3]

​

As women live longer than men on average, combined records for both sexes are predominated by women. The longest undisputed lifespan for a man is that of Jiroemon Kimura of Japan (1897—2013), who died at age 116 years, 54 days.

​

Since the death of 117-year-old Chiyo Miyako of Japan on 22 July 2018, 115-year-old Kane Tanaka, also of Japan, born 2 January 1903, is the oldest living person in the world whose age has been documented. Since the death of 113-year-old Francisco Nez Olivera of Spain on 29 January 2018, 113-year-old Masazō Nonaka of Japan, born 25 July 1905, is the world's oldest verified living man.

---

There are several between 113 and 119 years of age at death. This is not extraordinary age.What I don't see is anyone over 122 years, while your amusing pseudo kings list is fantasy built on fantasy and mentions many from 150 to over 400 with no evidence for them, supposedly in the same time period. There are no dates on this purported chronology and no evidence to support them -- it is useless fantasy based on fantasy. Garbage in garbage out. Like all your assertions.AND ... I also note that the Chinese chronicles do not mention a world wide flood, the earliest ruler in this list is from 2,953 BCE, or 4,970 years ago, well past your purported flood date. If you accept it as evidence for one thing you have to accept it as evidence for other things as well.Fail. Not what I said. What we have are some tombs, from them we know that the kings inside were real. Those include the ones in the absolute age section (Old Kingdom, 3rd Dynasty and later) that are used in the Egyptian Chronology. They also include ones earlier than the absolute age section, but they cannot be used as they are discontinuous from the absolute chronology. Your failure to comprehend what people are saying make your posts silly and ridiculous. Your repetition of assertions that have been shown to have serious problems, without showing why they are not problems (not by assertion, by demonstration with evidence), shows you have squat for an argument.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

Back again with repeated assertions that amount to fantasy and wishful thinking ... What we know is what the evidence shows.The evidence does not show a change in nature at any time.You have not presented any evidence (objective empirical evidence) that there was a change in nature, all you have is fantasy and wishful thinking ... and that means all your arguments are imaginary made-up fantasy, not a real argument that deserves comments.What is telling is what you don't deal with, not just the actual objective empirical evidence of old age, but the ludicrous fake evidence you presented with your graph of life spans: When you mock the evidence based Egyptian Chronology and then try to foist this bs pile of made up fantasy based on fantasy as evidence of long lives (while having not one shred of evidence that they actually lived, that the purported fantasy flood actually occurred, or that there was actually any kind of change in nature after the purported fantasy flood) on this thread as rational argument, then there is no reason to take you seriously.When you continue to repeat assertions while adding nothing to support your argument, you are not debating in good faith. You are just trying to hammer your personal fantasy on a thread with real evidence, when your position is hokum, pure unadulterated hokum, with less value than all the ant frass in Antarctica ...Let me know when you have real evidence. We could start with any objective empirical evidence that your fantasy flood actually occurred and when it occurred. Because all your assertions hinge on that being a fact instead of a fantasy.A peer reviewed scientific article on that would be a place to start.If you can't provide that evidence, then your argument is kaput and useless drivel.Enjoy

You don't know what they look like because you haven't looked. Curiously the fact that you haven't seen the evidence does not mean it does not exist, you need to know where to look. One place is the location of the Prometheus stump, which is open to the public.A quick google on "Bristlecone pine tree rings" brings up lots of pictures like this: Notice that this picture shows another correlation with a historical date ...A basic investigation into the science of dendrochronology tells you what annual rings look like, or you could read the beginning of the thread ... (see Message 2):

quote:

---

As both these trees have been dated by their tree rings, and they are about the same age they are very useful in building a dendrochronology as the whole ring pattern can be observed and checked for the initial 4,839 year period covered by both trees. Normally only dead samples are cut for cross-sections and live trees are normally sample by taking cores (as was being done on Prometheus when the tool broke). Cores and cross-sections of different samples are aligned by the pattern of annual rings that show the variations in climate from year to year.

​

Dendrochronology (7)

​

quote:

---

Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.

​

​

Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.

​

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

​

A number of tree samples must be examined and cross dated from any given site to avoid the possibility of all the collected data showing a missing or extra ring. Further checking is done until no inconsistency appears. Often several sample cores are taken from each tree examined. These must be compared not only with samples from other trees at the same location but also with those at other sites in the region. Additionally, the average of all data provides the best estimate of climate averages. A large portion of the effects of non-climatic factors that occur in the various site data is minimized by this averaging scheme.

​

The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further. The hope is to push the date back to at least 8,000 BC. This will be important as the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, and to have a record of this transition period would offer scientists a wealth of information.

---

​

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,

---

To cram the evidence into your fantasy fast growth you need to produce a full ring many cells thick every 4 minutes, one that shows the same annual pattern shown above with summer growth fading into winter stasis. You have yet to explain how that can possibly happen in your magic time. Pretending go-did-it is not science, it is religious fantasy escapism.Then there is the C14 levels in the rings taken from the atmosphere as the rings grew, and for your fantasy changing every 4 minutes in perfect synchrony around the world. And then there is the 11 year cycle of peaks in the C14 levels ... all not explained by fast growth.AND it doesn't explain the correlation to the Egyptian chronology. Attacking the Egyptian chronology as useless does not explain the correlation. Correction, I diss what you assert with no supporting objective empirical evidence. There is no evidence that your mythical fantasy flood ever occurred, no evidence that Abraham, Shem, Noah etc were real people and not myth. And yes, all mythology is considered fake history until you can show evidence for it being real. So you say, repeatedly, but you offer no evidence of this for the period used, while several publications show the absolute dates as validated for the period in question. But not for the period in question. The Egyptian chronology I referred to shows history backed up by objective empirical evidence. Here is the previous discussion of this again (Message 979):

quote:

---

Apparently they don't even know who the first king was.

​

Which is irrelevant to the kings where the artifacts were found in their tombs. More red herring lack of ability to follow context.

​

The biggest item in there is question marks!!!! Ha. Some science.

​

The artifacts in question are from the Old Kingdom, the third dynasty, not any earlier than that. This makes your continued railing on about spirit kings pointless and irrelevant babble.

​

The tombs are objective empirical evidence as are the artifacts that were found in them. The point in time we are interested in is (from previously}:

​

"So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology."

​

Try this instead: List of Pharaohs ... page down to the Old Kingdom, notice the dates on the left.

​

Notice that 2660 BCE is the Third Dynasty. The beginning of the documentation with actual ages according to the objective empirical evidence used by the Egyptologists in this chronology..

​

No question marks there.

---

Repeating a point that has already been addressed and invalidated (at least twice so far), does not make it any more valid, it just shows you are not debating in good faith, that you don't learn and don't change your tune when you are shown to be wrong.The pseudo made up "chronology" (with no dates) that you presented is NOT even supported by one tiny shred of objective empirical evidence, yet you seem to think it is superior to the Egyptian one.That is laughable. Says the person making stuff up right left and center, the person who has invented an imaginary "former nature" so he can pretend that actual objective empirical evidence does not show an old age for the earth.Here's what you didn't answer, again (Message 996):

quote:

---

Let me know when you have real evidence.

​

We could start with any objective empirical evidence that your fantasy flood actually occurred and when it occurred. Because all your assertions hinge on that being a fact instead of a fantasy.

​

A peer reviewed scientific article on that would be a place to start.

​

If you can't provide that evidence, then your argument is kaput and useless drivel.

---

So you are still spouting unsupported drivel. Repeating it does not make it any more valid or real.Enjoy

So where are the peer reviewed scientific articles based on objective empirical evidence that support this assertion? Where is the documentation that they are "absurd interpretations" rather than ones based on all the evidence, including the little details you like to overlook? Curiously a single anecdotal story is not objective empirical evidence, where is the evidence to support the claim that this written story is anything but mythology?Science, on the other hand, has lots of evidence, including but not limited to the evidence in this thread that shows the earth is significantly older than any young earth scenario. The evidence includes multiple correlations between different measuring systems that validate the age measurements.You yourself cannot get beyond the living Bristlecone pine trees:

quote:

---

RAZD Message 277: There are three trees that are documented to be over 4800 years old, the oldest is 5014 years old this year.

​

There is no change in the formation of the tree rings during those years.

​

Can you explain this without magic and fantasy?

​

We can discuss how this evidence is tested and validated, if you are interested, and we can discuss how the scientific method can be used to extend this chronology to 8000 years with bristlecone pines, and then to 12000 years with Irish and German oak chronologies.

​

Note that this evidence invalidates any evidence you think demonstrates a young earth.

​

Faith Message 278: No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.

---

There is so much more evidence in this thread that to continue believing in a young earth is willfully ignorant at best and delusional at worst. Ignorance is curable ... but you have to be willing to let go of falsified beliefs. ... and carefully place them delicately into sorted layers that show evolutionary changes in species from layer to layer ... matching radiometric isotope level changes from layer to layer that somehow fall in perfect match to the exponential decay curve ... (correlations ... what this thread is about), something that doesn't -- can't -- happen in the real world floods because of the real world constraints of physics ... Among all the other problems with your flood scenario/s that have polluted other threads. It doesn't belong here, it belongs on a flood thread ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

... that show deposition occurred over many years, due to the radioactive isotope levels in them, many depositions that alternated small fine particles with heavy large particles when these particles settle at different rates (Stoke's Law), some of them with annual patterns (see Message 5, Lake Suigetsu Varves). ... that are sorted layer by layer just as if they were laid down over centuries, with small and large fossils of one age mixed up, but never mixed up with other layer fossils, sorted by their evolutionary heritage of generational change in each species that is shown to occur layer after layer.Here is an example, a (simplified) foraminifera biochart:

quote:

---

​

Foraminifera are separated into two groups following their life strategy, namely the planktonic and the benthic foraminifera. Planktonic foraminifera occur worldwide over broad laditudinal and temperature belts. They typically float in the surface or near-surface waters of the open ocean. Their wide geographical range, combined with a short vertical stratigraphic time range (due to rapid evolution), make them excellent index fossils at family, generic and species levels. The figure on the left shows the ecological distribution of larger benthic foraminifera and key smaller benthic and planktonic foraminifera through space and time.

---

bold added for emphasisGeological Age vertically, Ecology horizontally.

quote:

---

Index fossils (also known as guide fossils or indicator fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). Index fossils must have a short vertical range, wide geographic distribution and rapid evolutionary trends. Another term, Zone fossil is used when the fossil have all the characters stated above except wide geographical distribution, they are limited to a zone and can't be used for correlations of stratas. [1]

---

When we find these index fossils they are always sorted in the same order from top layers to bottom layers and they always correlate with the geological age of the layers they are found in.There is no known mechanism for flood water to do this sorting, just as there is no known mechanism for flood water to sort radioactive isotope levels to match the radiometric ages of these layers. The correlations show that sedimentary layers correlate with age with the radioactive isotope levels and with the species buried in them that show evolution from layer to layer.Explain the correlations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Indeed there is evidence of many small floods as well as of sunken cities (due to sea level rise and land sinking after volcanic eruptions and which occurred over periods of years). Annual floods of major river flood plains also leaves records of flooding (Egypt, Nile delta sediments for instance).But none of these floods were world wide events.Certainly the Black Sea flood was catastrophic compared to these common floods, and certainly it is the best evidence of a factual flood behind the myths of great floods (Gilgamesh, Atra-Hasis, bible, etc).Of course the mythical parts (gods, building a boat, saving all types of animals, world wide flooding) are typical of epic stories embellishing actual events.Certainly there was no evidence of a genetic bottleneck of all world wide species ... or even of domestic animals ... at that time period.What we have is a lack of correlation between biblical myth and actual evidence of floods.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

There is also no evidence of a flood topping the White Mountains for the last 9,000 years (see Message 2) because the growth there is not disrupted.Enjoy

(RAZD, Message 1025: There is also no evidence of a flood topping the White Mountains for the last 9,000 years (see Message 2) because the growth there is not disrupted.) If pigs could fly is not an argument from factual information.You have not established (a) that there was such a flood, (b) that there was any different nature before the flood, and (c) that significant hyper-fast geological formations occurred after the flood.This makes your argument vacuous and irrelevant, without foundation or reason.This is a science thread, and that means arguments are supposed to be based on facts not fantasy. All you have is fantasy and self delusion.More to the point, the climate shown by the tree rings is consistent with a high altitude, cold, short growing season environment as exists today, and this is one piece of evidence that the mountain peaks did not undergo a sudden massive uplift. There are other in the geology of the mountains that tells us they have been there a loooong time.Oh look, you make a fool of yourself again: So it tells you nothing about sudden mountain formation, and this shows it is just you making stuff up out of thin air in order to post a silly vacuous argument with no discernable value. Says the person who has not made a single valid point yet in this thread. Your failure to understand what is posted, and why, is not winning. You're in an axe fight without an axe.All you are doing is taking pot-shots with some bizarre hope of finding a nick in the thread, but you fail to realize that the real strength of this thread comes not from the details and multitude of ways to measure time, valuable as they are, but from the correlations between them. It is easy to make up ways each measurement system could be in error, but -- as you have found -- not anywhere near so easy to explain the correlations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ....

Why?What have you presented, other than your pathetic delusional assertions about a different nature (which are not scientific evidence of anything other than that you are deluded)?Nothing.Curiously that doesn't invalidate the tree rings in the pines, or the ones in the oaks ... the other two dendrochronologies that confirm the validity of the pine rings. You asked for photos of the tree rings and I showed you one. Now you complain that it doesn't show the ring 4500 years old.And yet I have shown you where that can be found, where it exists in one of many trees, where anyone can count the rings and see how many there are, and where they are actual objective empirical evidence of age beyond 4500 years into the past.You keep raising this as if it were some critical point that challenges the whole thread. It doesn't, it doesn't challenge anything except your ability to understand what real evidence is.When there is objective empirical evidence we find many sources to show it's validity, many documents by people using these factual artifacts. So I did a little more googling (another 5 minutes of my time doing what you would not bother to do), and I found something that I can add another reference to my revised version of this thread that will emphasize how good the evidence of old age is:

quote:

---

BOOK OF DAYS TALES, Prometheus Cut Down

​

​

On this date in 1964 the oldest known unitary organism, Prometheus, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree growing near the tree line on Wheeler Peak in eastern Nevada was cut down by a graduate student and United States Forest Service personnel for research purposes. The tree was at least 4862 years old and possibly more than 5000 years. The people involved supposedly did not know of its world-record age before the cutting. ... The name of the tree refers to the mythological figure Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans. The designation WPN-114 was given by the original researcher, Donald Rusk Currey, and refers to the 114th tree sampled by him for his research in Nevada’s White Pine County.

​

Currey originally aged the tree at, minimally, 4844 years. A few years later, this was increased to 4862 years by Donald Graybill of the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. However, these ring counts were done via borings on a trunk cross section taken about 2.5 m (8 feet) above the original germination point of the tree, because the innermost rings were missing below that point. Adjusting Graybill’s figure of 4862 by adding in the estimated number of years required to reach this height, plus a correction for the estimated number of missing rings (which are not uncommon in trees growing at the tree line), it is probable that the tree was at least 5000 years old when felled. This makes it the oldest unitary organism ever discovered, exceeding even the Methuselah tree of the White Mountains’ Schulman Grove, in California by two to three hundred years. Methuselah, thankfully, is still alive and its location is kept secret to prevent harm caused by tourism.

​

Very old trees can be very useful to archeologists and climate historians. Dendochronologists (tree ring experts), use the fact that the widths of tree rings vary year by year, depending on weather conditions during each growing season, to build up chronological linear tree ring profiles (that look something like bar codes). By matching these base profiles with ring patterns on wooden components in buildings from archeological sites, they can determine the age of these structures very precisely — much more accurately than by any other method, such as carbon 14 dating. Climate historians can use those same patterns to track long terms changes in weather. Thus, for research purposes, the older the tree the better.

​

California Redwood

​

A tree does not have to be cut down in order to get an accurate ring profile. It is possible to take core samples by boring into the tree and then examining the rings under a microscope. But in the earlier part of the 20th century there were fewer qualms than nowadays about felling a giant old tree. ...

​

In the 1950s dendrochronologists were making active efforts at finding the oldest living tree species, in order to use the analysis of the rings for various research purposes. Bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California and elsewhere were found by Edward Schulman to be older than any species yet discovered. This spurred interest in finding very old bristlecones, possibly older than the Methuselah tree, aged by Schulman in 1957 at over 4700 years.

​

Donald R. Currey was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studying the climate dynamics of the Little Ice Age using dendrochronology techniques. In 1963 he became aware of the bristlecone populations in the Snake Range in general, and on Wheeler Peak in particular. Based on the size, growth rate and growth forms of some of the trees he became convinced that some very old specimens existed on the mountain, cored some of them, and found trees exceeding 3,000 years old. However, Currey was not able to obtain a continuous series of overlapping cores from WPN-114. ...

​

	Edward Schulman

​

... there are conflicting views over whether at the time of felling, Prometheus was known to be unique in the Wheeler Peak grove. It is reported that Currey and/or the Forest Service personnel who authorized the cutting believed the tree was just one of many large, very old trees in the grove. Others, at least one of whom was involved in the decision-making and tree cutting, believed that the tree was clearly unique obviously older than other trees in the area. ... Currey indicates that he sectioned the tree as much to resolve the question of whether the oldest bristlecones were necessarily confined to California’s White Mountains (as some dendrochronologists had been claiming), as to determine its usefulness in regard to studies of the Little Ice Age.

​

Whatever the rationale, the tree was cut down and sectioned in August 1964, and several pieces of the sections hauled out to be processed and analyzed, first by Currey, then by others in later years. Sections, or pieces of sections, have ended up in various places, some of which are publicly accessible, including the Great Basin National Park visitor center (Baker, Nevada), the Ely Convention Center (Ely, Nevada), the University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (Tucson, Arizona), and the US Forest Service’s Institute of Forest Genetics (Placerville, California). You will note that the cross sections of Prometheus that are preserved are quite small for a tree so old. Bristlecone pines live in such marginal zones that they grow very little year by year. ...

​

---

So here we have another picture, this time of one of the several sections of Prometheus that have been used to verify the age of this tree. Here's another:

quote:

---

The Prometheus Story

​

... Currey had permission from the Forest Service to have the tree cut down. Counting the rings later revealed that Prometheus contained 4,862 growth rings. Due to the harsh conditions these trees grow in, it is likely that a growth ring did not form every year. Therefore, Prometheus was estimated to be 4,900 years old, the oldest known tree of its time. At the time, Prometheus was the oldes tree ever dated, the runner-up being a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California. It was only 4,847 years old. It wasn't until 2012 that an older tree was found - another bristlecone in the same area, proved to be 5,065 years old. There is a good chance there are older bristlecone pines that have not yet been dated.

​

Prometheus slab at the Great Basin Visitors Center.

---

Done and double done. Because of these articles I can now use 4,862 years for the age of Prometheus instead of the original 4,844 years.Thanks for improving the details and the accuracy of my posting on the Bristlecone pines in general and Prometheus in particular.This is the inevitable result of nit-picking comments on objective empirical evidence, as we have seen: answering you has improved the documentation here, and on the Egyptian chronology. Keep going, and you will just dig yourself deeper into a hole you can't explain your way out of. Irrelevant. Please keep to the facts and not posting your fantasies ...See Message 1044 for more details on this silly fantasy purported flood argument ... which just gets more laughable with later posts ... I suppose the islands will suddenly evolve legs ... LOL.It seems that creationists are incapable of supporting arguments with facts, so they try to chip away at the scientific evidence and post imaginary fantasy drivel instead.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : .

There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 4,500 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch.The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 4500 years ago.There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 8,000 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch.The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 8,000 years ago.The absolute tree ring age correlates with the absolute part of the Egyptian chronology for 17 artifacts, with the earliest being 2827 BCE to 2651 BCE, and Shaw's Chronology gives 2660 BCE. Note that +/-88 years in over 4,700 years of tree ring chronology is an error of +/-1.9%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age, but it is mostly due to the wiggle of the 14C levels that match these sample data points to several different times.There is also no mention of a different nature in either Egyptian or Chinese chronicles.The evidence shows that there was no measurable difference in nature beyond 4500 years ago and thus any argument based on this fantasy is worse than useless.The scientific consensus from many different fields is that there is little measurable difference between any time in the past and the present, and that - until there is objective empirical evidence otherwise - there is no need to consider any hypothetical change for the purpose of doing scientific research.You have no objective empirical evidence of any change in nature. Nope.The onus is on you to show objective empirical evidence of a different nature and when it happened, because the evidence in this thread, especially the correlations, validates the tree ring data and the ages they record, while you are a like a lone voice gibbering in the dark. Moving the goal posts again. Typical creationist failed god-of-the-gaps argument.Too bad that you can't focus on the evidence, while the rest of the world has no problem with it, and the evidence has been validated by several different scientific groups in peer reviewed articles. Congratulations, your silly nit-picking has now reached the level of sublime ridiculousness ... you want to see C14. The data is documented in peer reviewed scientific articles, and if you want the information then contact the authors. Anyone who doesn't believe the information is there is a fool, idiot or troll. A scientific review changed the age by 18 years or 0.4%. 4,862 is now the accepted age because the evidence was reviewed twice. This is how science operates, not by wishful delusional thinking, but by review of the evidence. Only you. Other people can follow what is actually written and understand what it means. Except that I only use the absolute known age from the rings that are there. The tree is obviously older because the early growth rings have been eroded away (look at the picture of the section and you will see there is no center).Nobody else seems to have trouble understanding this simple fact. Nope. Not for the actual counted rings that are actual factual objective empirical evidence that is documented in several places and where the actual sections exist to verify those counts by anyone that wants to make a legitimate inquiry. Like a fool that gibbers in the darkness of his delusions. The rest of the world ignores this foolish ranting, because the evidence shows (a) it is obviously, blatantly wrong (or misunderstanding), and (b) what he rants about is totally irrelevant and completely fails to address (1) the objective empirical evidence of actual factual age and (2) the correlations.Or like a troll that thinks he can disrupt a thread, and ends up providing evidence of how vacuous creationist arguments are ... like being in an axe fight without an axe. Or like the Black Knight (Monty Python, Holy Grail} EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

False.

1. there is no evidence a world covering flood ever occurred,
2. there is some dino DNA (see below) and
3. there is plenty of DNA from before 4,500 years ago, which I believe is your arbitrarily chosen fantasy flood time.

quote:

---

Ancient DNA

​

... more than 80 million years ago. When in 1995 two further studies reported dinosaur DNA sequences extracted from a Cretaceous egg,[18] it seemed that the field would revolutionize knowledge of the Earth's evolutionary past. ...

---

Once again you are shooting blanks on a science thread, making unfounded assertions without any basis on objective empirical evidence.The correlations confirm the age chronology with no evidence of any different nature at some arbitrary chosen but actually unknown time.This thread is about correlations, not fantasy.Enjoy

But that doesn't relate to the egg DNA in the paper.Furthermore, your comment was (Message 1060): So whether or not the DNA is degraded, your comment is shown to be false.Now you are moving the goalposts rather than acknowledging that your comment was in error. That is not debating in good faith, and this further pursuit of misunderstood small details just provides more evidence that you do not have any objective empirical evidence to support your assertions.Also see Message 1274 of Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? for some discussion of DNA from pre 4,500 years ago regarding humans, neanderthals and chimps.It is interesting, since this thread is about correlations, to see that the fossil record and the DNA record correlate for the descent of humans, neanterthals and chimps from common ancestors at two points in the past:

quote:

---

Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced
DNA Signatures Found in Present-Day Europeans and Asians, But Not In Africans

​

"The genomic calculations showed good correlation with the fossil record," said coauthor Jim Mullikin, Ph.D., an NHGRI computational geneticist and acting director of the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center. "According to our results, the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans went their separate ways about 400,000 years ago."

---

Again, there is no rational reason for such correlation of two entirely different approaches to occur unless they both are correct.Enjoy.