Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

They also go on as if God does not exist, history does not exist, spiritual life does not exist...etc etc.The issue is not whether the insane go on...the issue is what the insane claim as science here.

You 'extend' the C14 and all other things only in your beliefs. In reality nothing about the slow tree rings growth along with the current nature functions of C14 can be extended anywhere, anytime, anyhow..beyond where this nature has existed. The question is how long ago you can prove it did exist as YOU claim. ..Not how many foolish ways you can apply your beliefs to various evidences so that they appear to your made up little religious mind to all be correlated!!!!!!

Excellent...so we can scratch off DNA claims from your so called correlation pile.

You thought the crater was responsible for all deposits on earth? Ha.Prove the impacts were from above rather than below? Ruptured fountain of the deep?You guesses and beliefs are not of great import.

Not all lurkers frequenting this site would be open minded or honest. However, perhaps some things out there on the net will eventually be seen by other lurkers?Also, not all lurkers post as you do.
Also, if you bother posting you are a poster, not a lurker! So now you need to post why you think whatever it is you think/claim/believe!Hoo ha

Look, you post some moronic graph of C14 levels supposed into the far past, rather than focus on the pine tree rings you cited...you know, the ones pre 4500 that you have no pics/details on?The pine trees that saw an unprecedented spike, unseen in all history for the C14 levels back near the time I place the nature change!Ha

quote:

---

You may be interested in the updated version that has more details

---

Faith based dates based solely on the unsupportable belief that nature was the same (so they attribute years to the rings).Only IF there was a same nature in the past would we be able to do this. This does not show nature was the same! This is built squarely on the belief it was.Unless you prove it was, the dates lose all meaning beyond where we know our current nature/state existed.

quote:

---

There is a second Bristlecone pine chronology that was developed independently of the master chronology

---

Correction: the very same identical baseless belief in a same nature past was used also.I use older rings than the live trees also. However, I do not use them as if they were slow grown present nature rings from the dead trees.It was those rings that showed the astounding absolutely unprecedented spike in C14 levels in a short period!!!!!!!Your attempts to chart the rings as if they represent yearly cycle, present nature growth are truly pathetic religion.

quote:

---

You ask for a tiny tid-bits of rather irrelevant information,

---

Excuse me???!!! You want to claim that when YOU bring up tree rings and dates from them, that it is irrelevant info to look at the actual old rings and data from them, from the specific time in question??

quote:

---

German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe

---

You are getting worse than Mr, Bean. The principle of what nature trees grew in must be addressed. Instead you take your comedy act to another continent, and run the same show.Same thing with varves, and the unknown rapid deposition of the former nature...you try to insist it had to have been laid down in this nature...for no apparent reason. Same thing fr coral growth and ice.Religion. Religion. Religion.

quote:

---

Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.

---

Once again you try to use dead trees added with the rings of the living tree and say they all represent present nature growth for no reason! Then you have no pics of the rings in the pine tree older than 4500! No data on the specific rings either!

Yes, people are God detectors!AS FOR SCIENCE BEING 'AWARE OF HISTORY'...SURE. tHEY DENY THE SPIRITUAL PARTS OF IT, AND THE OLD AGES, AND ETC ETC. Edited by creation, : No reason given.

There are actually gods and spirit beings in all early history almost. You can't deny it. Well I guess you do deny it, but that is your problem.

So you say that all iridium on earth in the KT layer is from Yucatan?As for what is deep in the earth, the bible sys water came up from there. If iridium was really down there as science claims (haa) why not have some of it come up also?Edited by creation, : No reason given.

You cannot declare beings that lived long ago fictional just because you seem sore there is no real Santa. Not all kids are taught Santa is real FYI.

That may be the case, that an impact came from a large object from space.What I have asked, is whether that impact/force could have actually been from below, in a gigantic ancient fount of the deep, bring up water and various stuff with the water!?That would leave the same evidences at great distances. That would still leave the markings at the crater rock, the issue is whether anyone can show that the direction was from up to down or not.I will note that stuff did come from under the earth...even in the impact theory!"A 2016 drilling project into the Chicxulub peak ring confirmed that the peak ring comprised granite ejected within minutes from deep in the earth,"wiki

quote:

---

That correlates with other chronologies based on their results for age and C14 levels. Calling it moronic does not refute the actual evidence as depicted in the graph.

---

What is in question, is not how patterns of C14 exist in ancient tree rings and other sources. The ehing that is off kilter here is that you were asked about specific tree rings (pre 4500 year old rings) in a certain tree, and the response involved a chart that had nothing to do with that. Instead it charted some patterns supposed going far far back in time.

quote:

---

Again, I refer you to the papers cited and the authors of those papers for specific details that are immaterial to the overall data showing the chronological pattern and the correlations.

​

You pick an arbitrary date, with no specific value, as if somehow it is different from the rest of the dates. What's the point? Your nit-picking on details doesn't explain the correlations.

---

Let's be mature here, just because you failed to be able to produce the pics/data for the pine tree rings you bragged about doen''t mean you need to call it nit picking to be asked!

quote:

---

And yet you haven't produced any evidence of this claimed "unprecedented spike" ... you claimed a link but it was not to be found.

---

Well, if you had problems with the link you should have said so.I just clicked on the link and it works fine!Just a moment...In that link it does say this"In any case, the 14C variation of the 5480 BC event indicates an unprecedented anomaly in solar activity compared to other periods."Try to accept the evidences. The unprecedented anomaly at the time in question in the tree rings.
The confluence of historical data that shows that ages were longer. (China, Sumer, Scripture..etc).Guess who actually has correlations here for the evidences!!? Ha.Let's note also, that history was REWRITTEN by the bristlecone pine tree rings!!! The radiocarbon dates were tweaked drastically to fit the rings, which forces a reevaluation of the ages that had been used!!!!!!! It is becoming clear that the so called correlations of science are inbred circular religion!

quote:

---

Your purported spike does not appear in any of these graphs at 4500 years ago (2500 BCE or 4500 BP):

---

Excellent! So when you get the link provided, that shows there was a spike will you renounce your faulty charts!!?

quote:

---

What I have provided is the documentation for the ages of all the tree rings and their respective ages forming an accurate and precise dendrochronology. The specific location in a picture of one specific ring is irrelevant to the total set of data consistently showing age measured by annual rings.

---

You were asked about the HUNDREDS of rings on the specific tree that was living that YOU made specific claims about actually! Not 'one' ring'!Cut the smoke and mirrors and admit the astounding fail.Edited by creation, : No reason given.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Actually, I place the flood (my current opinion, subject to evidences) to be about the time of the KT layer!The dating system used to date the deposits is based only on beliefs. The actual age for the KT is probably closer to around 4500 years ago ..real time.Looking at the conclusions in an article on the impact crater, I see this"Conclusions. So where do we stand in understanding the K-T extinctions today? Clearly, some extinctions occurred in the 10 My before the K-T boundary, and these appear to be related to terrestrial causes such as a fall in sea level or a temperature drop. However, the numerous extinctions that occurred from 65 to 66 Ma seem to require a catastrophic cause. In Table 7.3, various evidences for impact are compared with flood-basalt eruption to explain the K-T extinctions. Although it would appear that both impact and volcanic causes may explain the Ir anomalies, only impact can readily account for the wide distribution of glass spherules and soot and the presence of shocked quartz and stishovite."https://www.sciencedirect.com/...-planetary-sciences/iridiumSo basically there was some sort of impact, (from below would fit also) that was associated with a very major change in what life existed on earth.The flood was also a time when a major change in life occurred!