Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 886 of 1498 (841804)
10-22-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
10-22-2018 8:35 AM


Re: Bible Inerrancy is NOT FOR THIS THREAD
NOT FOR THIS THREAD
Go somewhere else

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 887 of 1498 (841855)
10-22-2018 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by RAZD
10-22-2018 12:13 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also?
The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times.
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc.
So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts?
You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2018 12:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 4:28 AM creation has replied
 Message 891 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 8:29 AM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 888 of 1498 (841856)
10-22-2018 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 879 by dwise1
10-22-2018 1:57 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Your correlation claims are wrong. A bunch of empty blab. Try addressing the core issues here.
If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by dwise1, posted 10-22-2018 1:57 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2018 12:42 AM creation has replied
 Message 894 by edge, posted 10-23-2018 10:53 AM creation has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 889 of 1498 (841866)
10-23-2018 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by creation
10-22-2018 11:01 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Your correlation claims are wrong.
Bullshit! Explain in detail what is wrong with the math. Refer to your textbook from your statistics class.
And while you are at it, you still have not provided any of the Bible verses that in Message 834 you claim show that the year is 360 days long; from my Message 875:
dwise1 writes:
In Message 834, you claim:
creation writes:
Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually.
Prove it! Present the actual verses which say that!
Or are you also lying about what the Bible says?
If you are telling the truth, then providing that information should be trivially simple. If you are lying, then just admit it. If you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating crap fed to you by some creationist cretin, then admit it and identify that cretin.
So far, all your actions have demonstrated that you are just yet another dishonest creationist troll. You are the wicked fruit described in the Matthew 7:20 Test which proves that your religion is a false religion that should be cut down and thrown into the fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 11:01 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 890 of 1498 (841873)
10-23-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by creation
10-22-2018 10:57 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also?
You asked what Ian Shaw used for his chronology to show it was not based of C14 dating.
I showed you what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, and it is not C14 based. It does stand on it's own.
Your question was answered. An honest person would acknowledge that.
You have not shown that his chronology is in error. All you have done is dismiss it -- that is not any refutation of the chronology. Nor does it show he was in error. Fail.
The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times.
Curiously, I have not claimed dates, but actual factual measured present day levels of C14 in the tree rings and in the Egyptian artifacts. The FACT that they match shows that the tree rings and the artifacts are from the same time that left the patterns. That is the correlation.
Why do they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they are not from the same time when "whatever processes were at work left the patterns" ... that is the question posed by the correlation.
It doesn't matter what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, the issue is that it correlates to the tree rings by the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14.
You have yet to explain the correlation if either chronology is wrong (why your mocking Shaw's chronology is irrelevant).
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc.
That information is in the link provided to the paper on dating those artifacts (a peer reviewed scientific paper). If you want more detail then ask the authors of the paper.
So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts?
Again, there are four different tree ring chronologies, two with Bristlecone pines from independent areas, and two with oak trees, one Irish and one German. They all run past 4500 years, and all four correlate for the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 for the counted ring annual ages with over 99% accuracy.
These results are also in peer reviewed scientific papers, and if you want further details, then ask the authors of the papers.
You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..?
The trees age was measured by coring, and reported in a peer reviewed paper. If you want further details, then ask the authors of the paper.
And this whining sideshow is also irrelevant to the issue of the correlation:
System A provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system A
System B provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system B
The evidence used in system A is entirely different from the evidence used in system B
Nether system uses C14 levels to develop their age measurements
Why do they both provide the same C14 measured level N at age X if they are wrong?
You have not explained why they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they don't come from the same time period.
Why do they correlate if the time measurements are wrong.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 10:57 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 10:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 891 of 1498 (841878)
10-23-2018 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by creation
10-22-2018 10:57 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc.
So let me repeat the data from Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote:
Next we have consilience with biblical accounts:
Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, part 4(3)
quote:
We will employ tree rings and carbon-14, but not in the way readers may be accustomed to seeing. We will not use carbon-14 to determine an age at all. We will simply measure how much carbon-14 is currently found in each tree ring. Carbon-14 decays with time, so if each tree ring represents one year of growth, we should see a steady decline in the carbon-14 content of each successive ring. Figure 5 shows tree-ring carbon-14 data from living trees extending back 4000 rings.[2] ...
If additional confidence in this data is desired, it may be helpful to note that the amount of carbon-14 found in a timber from a tunnel in Jerusalem thought to have been built by Hezekiah is approximately the same as the amount found in tree ring number 2700, which places its ring-counting age where expected from Biblical records if each ring equals one year. Even better, consider the Dead Sea Scrolls — the book of Isaiah in particular. ... The amount of carbon-14 in the Isaiah scrolls is equal to or less than the amount in tree ring number 2100, meaning carbon-14 confirms its before-Christ historicity.[3]

This graph appears to start with year 2000 CE (rather than 1950). This adds 2050 BP (100 BCE) and 2650 BP (700 BCE) to the list of correlations of historical artifact to dendrochronological age by 14C content.
Then there is consilience with Egyptian history and the dating of various finds (artifacts), for example:
Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt(4)
quote:
... Radiocarbon dating, which is a two-stage process involving isotope measurements and then calibration against similar measurements made on dendrochronologically dated wood, usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period (95% probability range) and has previously been too imprecise to resolve these questions.
Here, we combine several classes of data to overcome these limitations in precision: measurements on archaeological samples that accurately reflect past fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley, direct linkages between the dated samples and the historical chronology, and relative dating information from the historical chronology. Together, these enable us to match the patterns present in the radiocarbon dates with the details of the radiocarbon calibration record and, thus, to synchronize the scientific and historical dating methods. ...
... We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). The majority (~75%) of the measurements have calibrated age ranges that overlap with the conventional historical chronology, within the wide error limits that result from the calibration of individual dates.
The modeling of the data provides a chronology that extends from ~2650 to ~1100 B.C.E. ...
(red lines added)
The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18) but have the resolution to contradict some suggested interpretations of the evidence, such as the astronomical hypothesis of Spence (24), which is substantially later, or the reevaluation of this hypothesis (25), which leads to a date that is earlier. The absence of astronomical observations in the papyrological record for the OK means that this data set provides one of the few absolute references for the positioning of this important period of Egyptian history (Fig. 1A).

("OK" refers to the "Old Kingdom")
Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:
The earliest/oldest dates in Fig 2 are shown at ~2660 BCE, with 7 samples placed together (with two more placed nearby). There are several possible matches for each of these samples, running from 2580 BCE to 2860 BCE -- due to the wiggle of the 14C amounts in that portion of the graph -- I get 5 possible matches for the lowest point with an average age of 2693 BCE, 8 possible matches for the next point with an average of 2660 BCE, 6 possible matches for the third point for an average of 2702 BCE, 12 possible matches for the fourth point for an average of 2733 BCE, 9 possible matches for the fifth point for an average of 2754 BCE, 6 possible matches for the sixth point for an average of 2750 BCE, 8 possible matches for the seventh point for an average of 2771 BCE, 8 possible matches for the eight point for an average of 2787 BCE, and 6 possible matches for the highest point for an average of 2788 BCE. Assuming these points all represent the same age, the overall average age is ~2740 BCE with σ of +/-88 years (2827 BCE to 2651 BCE).
Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this falls inside the margin of error and thus is in close agreement with that dating.
So "We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). "
ALL the dates correlate with the oak tree ring chronology:
quote:
... Radiocarbon dating, which is a two-stage process involving isotope measurements and then calibration against similar measurements made on dendrochronologically dated wood, usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period (95% probability range) ...
The artifacts are compared to the dendrochronology by matching the measured C14 levels and then comparing the tree ring age to the Egyptian chronology age.
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also?
From the same reference:
quote:
The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18) but have the resolution to contradict some suggested interpretations of the evidence, such as the astronomical hypothesis of Spence (24), which is substantially later, or the reevaluation of this hypothesis (25), which leads to a date that is earlier. The absence of astronomical observations in the papyrological record for the OK means that this data set provides one of the few absolute references for the positioning of this important period of Egyptian history (Fig. 1A).
Note that "the consensus chronology of Shaw" refers to a consensus among Egyptologists on these dates. These are the people in the best position to discuss the sources and accuracy of this chronology. If you want to argue about the dates, they are who you need to talk to.
Now I'll just wrap up with the rest of Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote:
Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this falls inside the margin of error and thus is in close agreement with that dating.
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.
Note that this conversion to dendrochronological time does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' (which is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C in the samples as a fraction of the 1950 standard amount), but to comparing the measured 14C/14C(1950CE) ratios to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings. Using 14C levels to match chronologies introduces an error due to the number of different rings that match those levels inside the +/-1σ margins of error.
So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology. This chronology extends back to 12,410 cal BP (before 1950), or 10,460 BCE, and ~40% of its length is consilient with documented historical events\artifacts.
This high consilience between these dendrochronologies and historical dates gives us high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these dendrochronologies.
Remember: The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement data sets if they are not measuring actual age?
You still have not begun to address the issue of the correlations.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 10:57 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:03 AM RAZD has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 892 of 1498 (841887)
10-23-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 890 by RAZD
10-23-2018 4:28 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework.
OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date?
Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 4:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by edge, posted 10-23-2018 10:50 AM creation has not replied
 Message 900 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 1:05 PM creation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 893 of 1498 (841890)
10-23-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 892 by creation
10-23-2018 10:41 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
But claims of a 'previous state' can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 10:41 AM creation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 894 of 1498 (841891)
10-23-2018 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by creation
10-22-2018 11:01 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.
Okay, how fast should coral have grown in a previous state and how fast did ice layers accumulate?
Please document.
In detail, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 11:01 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:04 AM edge has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 895 of 1498 (841892)
10-23-2018 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by RAZD
10-23-2018 8:29 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Looking at your pic/graph, I see it lists Hezikiah's tree ring tunnel. Too bad that was very post flood eh? Then the line continues...no details. Ha.
Then you cite correlations going back to 700BC? Try dealing with 3000BC. Get on topic here.
Your other pic is funny. You cite other possible matches...wiggle room...so I am sorry, but..GONG!
As for artifacts matching C154 patterns, again, sorry, but whatever nature existed right after the flood would have left patterns. We can see you go fuzzy near that point and resort to wiggling and red lines.
As I said, you have no other way but decay 'dating'.
Then you cite the article and the 4700 years covered supposedly. That happens to be about the time of the flood. Add in the error of 1.9% they cite and we have some 85 years more to play with. Then we add in that the nature hange likely was about 106 years after the flood in the days of Peleg...and we have another 106 years to play with. Being so close to the nature change we must allow a possibility their fine artifacts were manufactured pre nature change! Your so called correlations crumble to dust. Once again we see you have absolutely nothing BUT one belief underpinning ALL your so called correlations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 8:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 2:29 PM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 896 of 1498 (841893)
10-23-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 894 by edge
10-23-2018 10:53 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by edge, posted 10-23-2018 10:53 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by edge, posted 10-23-2018 12:38 PM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 897 of 1498 (841894)
10-23-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by dwise1
10-23-2018 12:42 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Sorry about your cancerous attitude problem. I did give links to show the prophetic/Gen/Revelation years as being 360 days.
If you are google challenged I guess I could get them again for you. I do spoon feed religionists when I have time, but usually when they have a reasonable attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2018 12:42 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by ringo, posted 10-23-2018 12:03 PM creation has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 898 of 1498 (841904)
10-23-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by creation
10-23-2018 11:08 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:
I did give links to show the prophetic/Gen/Revelation years as being 360 days.
That was in the "Creation" thread. Your verses showed that a 360-day calendar may have been used. That has nothing to do with the actual length of a year.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:08 AM creation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 899 of 1498 (841907)
10-23-2018 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 896 by creation
10-23-2018 11:04 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?
You are the one professing a previous state. Can you not support your declaration?
If you want to "go with the evidence", where is yours?
What was life like back in this previous state?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 11:04 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by creation, posted 10-25-2018 8:18 AM edge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 900 of 1498 (841909)
10-23-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 892 by creation
10-23-2018 10:41 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I don't agree it stands on it's own. ...
You can disagree all you want to, you can spit into the wind and claim pigs fly, but it won't change the facts, nor will it explain the correlations. Sadly, for you, your personal opinion is worthless jibber-jabber in a debate against facts. It has also been shown that opinion is remarkably incapable of altering reality.
... The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
And you have not shown that they are vague or incorrect. Another worthless claim.
Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework.
OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date?
Oh look, I did yours -- again -- in Message 891, because it was easy.
Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. ...
Not really, not when there are 4 dendrochronologies that extend beyond 4500 (years ago) and agree with each other with less than 0.2% error at 8,000 years ago.
... Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links.
So I'll just post it again, with more detail from the previous link provided .....
quote:
Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, message 3, The Oldest Known Non-Clonal Trees:
You might think that measuring the age of trees is a simple matter of just counting the rings. In practice it is a bit more complicated. As a starting point we can begin with the oldest non-clonal trees in the world -- all Bristlecone Pines from the White Mountains of the Sierra Nevada:
  • the "Methuselah" tree(1), with a minimum germination date of 2832 BCE
  • the "Prometheus" tree(2) (aka WPN-114), with a measured age of 4862 when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum age because the core of the tree is missing, giving it a minimum germination date of 2898 BCE (but likely older).
  • the "Schulman's" tree(3) (my name for the tree because Edmund Schulman took the core samples and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with a minimum germination date of 3051 BCE
  • the "Ancient Sentinels"(4) - standing dead trees, as old as 7,000 years, however we have no information on their germination or termination dates at this point.
An"Ancient Sentinel"(5)
At this point we don't know from the information available when the ~7,000 year old sentinel trees died -- it could have been last year, 10 years ago, maybe 100 years ago, or more - so they represent a floating chronology, while the still living trees, Methuselah and Schulman's, represent absolute chronologies. Likewise, Prometheus represents an absolute chronology because the year it was cut down (the termination date)is known, so we know the age of the last formed ring.
Unless otherwise noted the ages of these trees were measured by counting annual rings from multiple core samples of the trees. This can lead to some minor inaccuracies, for example from missing sections of partial rings (resulting in an undercount). Cutting down the tree and using the whole cross-section is a different way to determine the age of a tree, and it avoids some of the problems with cores, so they are more accurate. Thus while it is unfortunate that Prometheus was cut down, we can benefit from the confidence gained by comparing the results with cored trees.
Note that these systems are similar so we should expect similar results. The real challenge will be to explain the consilience in results from other more independent systems, which we will get to later. This is just the beginning.
The earth is at least 5,067 years old (2017)
Now the "Schulman's" tree(3) is the one that is 5,067 years old (in 2017), and the link says
quote:
List of oldest trees
This is a list of the oldest-known trees, as reported in reliable sources. Definitions of what constitutes an individual tree vary. In addition, tree ages are derived from a variety of sources, including documented "tree-ring" count core samples, and from estimates. For these reasons, this article presents three lists of "oldest trees," each using varying criteria.
The current record-holders for individual, non-clonal trees are the Great Basin bristlecone pine trees from California and Nevada, in the United States. Through tree-ring cross-referencing, they have been shown to be more than five millennia old.
Individual trees with verified ages
Name Age
(years)
Species Location Country Notes
nb1
(Schulman's)
5,068
(2018)
Great Basin
bristlecone pine
White
Mountains
US Oldest known currently
living tree. Tree cored by
Edmund Schulman, age
determined by Tom Harlan.[6]
Methuselah 4,850 Great Basin
bristlecone pine
White
Mountains
US Until 2012, it was the
oldest-known living tree
in the world.[8]
Prometheus
(WPN-114)
4,844 Great Basin
bristlecone pine
White
Mountains
US Cut down by Donald
Rusk Currey in 1964.[6]
References
6. "Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, OLDLIST". Retrieved January 6, 2013.
8. "RMTRR OLDLIST". http://www.rmtrr.org. Retrieved 2017-09-14.
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:
The stump (lower left) and some remains of the
Prometheus tree (center), in the Wheeler Bristlecone Pine
Grove at Great Basin National Park near Baker, Nevada
So the answers to your questions are available with little effort, what it takes is the will to find them. And this irrelevant nit-picking diversion into minutia details that are unimportant to the issue of correlations fails to address the correlations or show that the data is incorrect.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by creation, posted 10-23-2018 10:41 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by creation, posted 10-25-2018 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024