Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

quote:

---

Why?

---

Why? Because in claiming things about rings pre 4500 level, you are in unknown territory as far as what nature existed.

quote:

---

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.

---

No one wants/needs to invalidate the rings beyond 4500 deep. What you do need to do is show these rings and any details you claim about them, and demonstrate that they were a product of this current nature! Simply picking up other dead tress with rings in the same area does not tell us what nature they grew in! Yet you incessantly offer this as some sort of 'collaboration'.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not bad actually. Better than I was able to come up with as far as pics.Too bad you can't focus on the rings that are older then 4500 though, which relegates the pics to meaninglessness. Then, if you could do that, let's see the precise carbon 14 data on THOSE rings that you try to sluff off on us also!

quote:

---

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 have not really done that. Is the data on C14 there and specific to the pre 4500 level rings? Where is the close up of the rings that matter, the ones older than 4500? You really thought posting some pic of a the tree that had no specific relation to the old rings helps you?! It proves you really don't know what you are talking about and plead faith alone!

quote:

---

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:

---

Ha. All based on the same ONE belief that you can't support./quoteOn 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.[/quote] ?? Named after some god that gave stuff to humans!? Ha. Well, too bad us poor humans can't see the rings you talk about eh? Are they missing or there? What do they look like? What is the exact C14 pattern in THEM? Etc.

quote:

---

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.

---

They don't agree on age??

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, brother, here we go again with the missing rings thnig!!!!!/quote
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),[/quote] Ha ha ha ha ha. TOTAL same state past based corrections!!!!

quote:

---

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.

---

They disagree on age, then correct it using a few same state past beliefs about what a tree should do....then talk of missing rings, then come up with some new date...and all the while we see NO rings past 4500 on display in the article or your posts!

quote:

---

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 —

---

All assuming the nearby dead trees with the same ring patterns ALSO grew slow in this nature!!!! Ridiculous religion.We wait. I laugh.

From YOUR link" The decay kinetics have been measured by accelerated aging experiments further displaying the strong influence of storage temperature and humidity on DNA decay.[28] Nuclear DNA degrades at least twice as fast as mtDNA. As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, may have stemmed from contamination of the sample."

You are not in a position to be able to measure differences because you approach all things as if nature was the same! Tree rings for example.If trees grew fast, then the rings in trees or furniture made from them...would NOT represent yearly cycles. Nor would C14 represent what it now does. The question is not how these things look to someone assuming nature was the same!! The question is whether you can prove it was or not.I simply win if you can't prove the basis (nature) used in your models/claims. Once we establish science doesn't know....it all becomes a matter of belief. That is the name of the game.

quote:

---

Moving the goal posts again

---

Not at all.You cited certain rings of a certain age and it is not moving any posts to get you to pony up some details here about those specific rings!Your fail screams out at us.

quote:

---

you want to see C14

---

No. We need to see the specific data on the specific rings older than 4500. If you claim a C14 pattern there....show the rings from there, and some graph or something dealing with those rings that shows some pattern for C14 in THEM. If you claim dark/light/missing/etc rings, then let;s see the data for the rings older than 4500!? No allusions. Facts.I notice they claim a recent pattern of darker rings in the pine trees, and are not sure why. I think they suspect warmer climate. Well, if those trees were there and growing at the time the mountains got heaved up/uplifted then one suspects the temp would change also for them!

quote:

---

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

---

Great, so forget older then if it is missing.When you claim an absolute number of rings exist right now, and claim stuff about the ones that are the oldest rings...I find it funny you have no proof? No pics. No data on the old/pre 4500 rings?But even if you could come up with some support for your claims, if trees grew fast, it loses all meaning anyhow! In all ways you are hooped.Let's say we had some dead trees with rings nearby the pines. Let's say they were hundreds of rings deep. Your belief system would simply add these to the age af the living tree, and do so by using the rings as being from a yearly/seasonal cycle!!So if we had 4800 rings from the living tree, and say, seven hundred from dead trees in the vicinity, you would declare an age in this example of 5500 years worth of rings.In reality if the dead trees grew in the former nature quickly, and the living tree started it's growth also in that former nature, we might have had all the rings in the dead trees and hundreds in the living tree...all grow in decades or years or a century..etc.Your WHOLE case rests on a current nature existing. All your correlations rest on that one premise.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since you provided no empirical pictures of the rings and no specific data, your case, by your own standard is illegitimate!

Well, assuming the patterns matched....

Forget pics about carbon. Just show the exact pattern pertaining to only tree rings dating over 4500 years.Looking at this site, I notice they seem to indicate that most tree ring C14 details are relatively recent."There is a little understanding about annual 14C variations in the past, with the exception of a few periods including the AD 774−775 14C excursion where annual measurements have been performed."Just a moment...I noticed in this article also something startling.There was a short time around the time near the time when a nature change likely occurred that there is strong evidence for a definite spike in C14 variation levels!!!(same link)"From our measurements, it becomes clear that the marked increase in the IntCal13 data (5490−5460 BC) shows a very large change in annual resolution.... Although the total 14C increment of the 5480 BC event is almost equal to the other minima (∼20), the 5480 BC event increases much faster than the others. Therefore, we expect that the origin of the 5480 BC event is apparently different from the other normal grand solar minima...To explain a rapid and large 14C increase, a dramatic decrease of the solar magnetism, or extreme SPEs, is necessary. Apart from these causes, changes in the geomagnetic field can also affect the GCR flux to Earth..Whereas another galactic event, e.g., GCR flux increases for ∼10 y followed by a tail (a few decades), may explain the 5480 BC event, we do not know of any such event. Therefore, we hypothesize that plausible causes of this 5480 BC event are (i) special state of the grand solar minimum, (ii) successive extreme SPEs over ∼20 y, or (iii) a combination of some extreme SPEs and a normal grand solar minimum (or solar magnetic activities).n any case, the 14C variation of the 5480 BC event indicates an unprecedented anomaly in solar activity compared to other periods."So there was an unprecedented change in levels of C14 at a specific time. The reasons are not known, but some speculations based on the present nature realities are given in the article.Amazing.One should remember that if there was a change in nature, (possibly indicated by the unprecedented spike in C14 levels in tree rings of the pines) that we cannot use the dates derived from yearly tree ring cycles. The tree rings before the change could have grown fast in the former nature.

If DNA is claimed, but it is supposedly degraded, how is that going to qualify as modern DNA we can look at and learn from? What sample exactly from what egg where dated when are you talking about, and how much DNA was there, and what do you think it tells us?It is news to me if there is DNA from the pre KT era. Let's see what it is like! How much do we have from how many samples?So far it seems like we have some extremely limited sample that is not in any sort of shape to really tell us much?! HaIn any discussion of DNA from Neanderthals or chimps...etc...we must look at when they lived. You claiming it was past 4500 years is a purely religious statement based exclusively on a belief in a same nature in the past. The so called dates are no better than that belief. The actual dates are quite different.

double postEdited by creation, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your personal opinion is..

---

It is not my opinion that science uses a same state past basis for models. Nor is it my opinion history and the bible indicate great differences in the past on earth.It is your opinion/belief that no other beliefs are allowed or matter regarding tree rings. Gong!You have not provided any evidence the trees grew slow!!! You just assumed and believed blindly. The same way you assume and blindly believe in your one belief in all other areas!! The fact you turn around and try to conflate/confuse/combine several areas of evidence with that sole belief and have the unmitigated gall to try and call this exercise in religious fanaticism 'correlations ' is appalling.You have been told before that any dark/light patterns in very old pines (which you failed to even be able to show us at all) if grown in the former nature and fast, obviously would not represent seasons of the year.You know NOTHING about what processes were involved or even if there was photosynthesis in place at the time...etc etc so you cannot tell us that dark/light patterns at that time had to represent seasons! You are talking out your hat.

quote:

---

You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: we know it is there.

---

?? No. We do not know any details about the older than 4500 tree rings of the pines from your posts. Did I miss something? Tell us about THOSE rings...details please! Ha.You appeal to blind unquestioning faith alone, and have used the disguise of science in doing so! You are now busted.You show a graph that lumps all the rings together. Let's see JUST the data for the pre 4500 'year' old rings!!!! Nothing else matters.

quote:

---

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples

---

Great, so let's see the C14 info for the rings pre 4500!!The link I posted suggests that most C14 details in trees are from the more recent times ( ..to ..several hundred years BC)

quote:

---

Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

---

We have no idea HOW C14 was 'gotten' in the former nature. Once again you seek to impose current nature realities onto the unknown nature in the past...for no apparent reason.

quote:

---

it is not possible for samples to be the same age and have different carbon-14 content.

---

No one says that several hundred rings from both nearby dead trees, and the innermost core of living trees are from the same time!! Canard. Strawman.Fast growing trees with hundreds of rings could, however represent decades or a century...etc!Therefore, the rings from the so called 5400BC in my link could represent trees mere decades before the time of the early bristlecone pines!In other words the actual dates for the so called 5400BC rings could be closer to 4500 years.As for false/missing rings, please do not tell us what former nature trees would do! How would you know? Your on trick religious pony is to attribute current nature features to the old trees by faith!!

quote:

---

That graph documents the actual measured C14 content (converted by math into a "C14 age" based on the Libby decay rate originally used in C14 dating) against the tree rings (converted to actual age because annual rings).

---

You cannot convert anything because of annual rings!! (unless there was annual rings).Now...if you want to post actual content of actual rings pre 4500 let's see the data! How would we accept that your graph looked at all rings, rather than some sort of averaging scheme? Let's see the goods.

quote:

---

The annual rings have markers that show the seasonal growth patterns and the stasis point for the end of each annual ring. Each ring also contains climate data and that results in different width rings that can be matched from one sample to the next to align them in chronological order.

---

Two points.1) Let's see the markers for the pre 4500 year rings then!!2) Remember that any patterns in trees grown in the former state do not equal patterns in this nature. What grows in a summer here, for example, might have grown in the cool of the day there for all we know.LurkersNotice that he did not even address the evidence about a historically unprecedented spike in C14 levels in the days of the bristlecone pin tree rings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha.Hoo ha.

You need to remember you may never claim anything at all about anything at all based on a same nature in the past that you cannot begin to support.

Ha. So you believe real hard. Somewhere, in hiding, unavailable to the 'educated' posters on this site making big claims...there are great close up pics of the pre 4500 pine tree rings.Uh huh

So let's ignore actual evidence of an unprecedented spike in C14 levels I guess? That we we can validate your preconceived beliefs that you thought was science!

They see iridium that science says usually is found in space/asteroids etc, and deep in the planet.They have no info on where the KT iridium came from all over the planet. They suspect, they believe ....It is the info they lack that damns their models.

Couldn't even be bothered to address the issues that defeated you eh?Your loss.

Since my argument is that you have no support for your vapid beliefs, who cares?

Sorry if you thought you could claim things based on some belief you can't support. Get over it, Those days are gone now.