Perhaps what I should have said is that the eco-system balance in the canopy which would have been so perfect for both animals and plants would become the condensed water which fell and covered the trees. Thus (perhaps) the best possible balance relative to the properties of the water covering the trees would have in the flood for survival of the trees so that the growth rings would show a continuous progression.
Perhaps. Perhaps bunnies had wings so that they could forage from the canopy, and weasels had turbine hearts that ran on swamp gas. Wouldn't that be fun. I'll show you twice as much evidence of turbine weasels that you show me for the flood.
I'm very sorry 2 put you 2 the trouble, lyx2, but would you mind xplaining 2 dumb laypeople who lyx 2 no what you said means?
No trouble unless you just intend for me to type a lot for you to disregard; otherwise, I owe it to you to explain myself.
My position is that if many of the trees survived the flood there would be no gaps and Carbon dating would show older dates than tests would indicate.
One of the major problems with many of your positions is that they don't even pay attention to their own implications.
As a tree grows it adds living layers just under the bark while wood farther in dies. The living rings accumulate carbon equal the the amount present in the biosphere: about 1ppt. The dead layers do not continue to sequester
14C. In other words, those rings carbon dating clocks have started. Regardless of the original amount of sequestered
14C it halves in 5,730 years. Assuming a constant starting value of
14C
o we can date each ring as N-8276ln(
14C
o/
14C
s)ya, where
14C
sis the sample value and N=now (2010). There are uncertainties and corrections but those can be ignored as they don't significantly affect the outcome of this argument.
A 1000 year old tree will have its last clock start 1000 years after its first clock.
Let us now say the flood happened 4,350 years ago, and that a tree that grew before the flood would have lived in a biosphere much lower in
14C then we would expect and consequently date older. For sake of argument say our tree sprouted 4,400ya by ring count dates to 10,000ya by carbon dating. We, therefore, think we erred by 5,600 years. Looking into it further, ring from our tree for 4,351ya by ring count would carbon date to 9,951ya. But after the flood when the atmospheric
14C was basically what it is now, a ring from 4,349ya by count would have an age of 4,349ya by carbon rather then 9,949ya. Where are the interim 5,600 years?
A severe change in the level of
14C
o would not go unnoticed.
Further, consider this important factor relative to the unique Buzsaw Hypothesis.
You can not dignify your collection of ad hoc statements as an hypothesis, Buz.
If you recall, my position is that since there was allegedly no Solar System until after plant life (including trees) were created (day 3).
This isn't even English, Buz.
Consider also that having no Solar System, no sun and moon to determine length of days.
That either.
Thus, all we would know is that the trees were older (perhaps significantly) than birds, fishes, animals and humans.
You've skipped two contentions and went right for the conclusion.
Interestingly, the record does not mention insects. The implication is that they were created along with the plants since they would serve in the ecology of plant propagation.
And straight into a non-sequitur.
Further yet, I see RAZD, in his latest dendrocronolical science thread, emphasised the corroboration factor relative to dating. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I harp on corroboration incessantly, yet nobody pays any attention to the fact that there are numerous corroborating factors relative to the veracity of the Biblical record.
Nobody pays any attention to your supposed corroborating factors because they are imaginary or trivial. The Bible's claim that Moses was floated in the river Nile is not corroborated by water running down hill.
You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
™ Version 4.2
