quote:
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.
Actually a different nature could not be expected to be explained merely using THIS nature! You kidding? You simply use this nature TO expalin it all!
In a different nature we do not know the function/role of C14 in nature, nor how trees grew. Etc.
By the way, please sow close ups of the rings pre 4500 level, and be sure to show the claimed 11 year cycle in THOSE rings!!!!!
quote:
... 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.
To pretend we would or should expect empirical evidence of a long passed history is dishonest. You have none to say it is or is not true.
That is not science, that is absolute flaming ignorance.
quote:
Message 900: Note that (WPN-114) was cut down in 1964 and had rings from that date back to 4,844 years ago, so your tree with a 4,500 year old ring can be seen on this stump:
Not in detail and we can see nothing of the rings pre 4500...just some silly stump!
How would we know what the supposed 344 extra rings contain exactly? You claim every eleven rings in that 344 rings have some spike from the sun?? Let's see the proof?
quote:
Message 907: 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.
So now you only claim 4700 which is about 200 rings more than the 4500!! No details of these 200 rings...the only ones that matter in this discussion...are given. Funny, that. What are you trying to pull?
quote:
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.
Smoke and mirrors, since the dead trees dendrochronology uses would have been also grown in the former nature if they were older than 4500 rings!
quote:
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.
Sad excuse for offering NO details on the ONLY rings that matter here!
The mere fact that there were a few hundred rings in trees already when the nature change happened is O problem at all for me. Nor does it help you since you have no specs no details on the rings that matter.
quote:
And this hand-waving explains nothing. It doesn't explain the variations recorded in the rings.
The ONLY variations that matter are the ones in the rings older than 4500 'years'. Tell us about these variations..you know in the rings you can provide no details about??
quote:
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.
Cherry picking some list with spirits and that can only be dated by radioactive methods is a joke.
quote:
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.
NO need to exclude the few hundred rings above the 4500. There IS a need to show up close details of these rings IF you (as you do) claim specific things about THESE rings.
quote:
That doesn't look like a taper to me. I also note that the oldest is 120 years, an age which is possible today.
So are the years of the reign of kings or their lif span? If it is the reign, then we would take 120 years and add a possibly long childhood and old age!!! Look at Trump, how many years will he 'reign' compared to his whole life?!
Also, it is no use grasping at some Guinness book of records to find oldest living people. The king lists are of kings...not the oldest record breaking life span holders!
quote:
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.
My point exactly...THIS nature does not allow such old ages!! The evidence mounts!
quote:
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.
I agree. My feeling was that it probably was some post nature change release of old flood water dams or some such.
quote:
Not what I said. What we have are some tombs, from them we know that the kings inside were real.
What is the oldest tomb you have and how is it dated!?
Just because there are some tombs means nothing. Of course some of the kings are real.
Hoo Ha
™ Version 4.2
