Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Hi JzyehoshuaStill trying to throw mud rather than address the correlations. Typical creationists dodge. Let me check: Which is what is quoted in Message 3 -- amusingly you can search the site for the paragraphs quoted and see that they are still there. So you are incapable of following a table of contents? They have changed the website format since the article was written but the information is still available.You will notice the (4) after the link and the references at the bottom:

quote:

---

(4) Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 25 Dec 2007 from http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/...bon/GetFileServlet?
file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume46/Number3/azu_radiocarbon
_v46_n3_1029_1058_v.pdf&type=application/pdf

---

Clicking on the archives button on the Radiocarbon website and then finding and clicking on Volume 46, Issue 3 then on the table of contents you find

quote:

---

IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP.

​

Paula J Reimer, Mike G L Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J Warren Beck, Chanda J H Bertrand, Paul G Blackwell, Caitlin E Buck, George S Burr, Kirsten B Cutler, Paul E Damon, R Lawrence Edwards, Richard G Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich, Thomas P Guilderson, Alan G Hogg, Konrad A Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Sturt Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W Reimer, Sabine Remmele, John R Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F W Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht, Constanze E Weyhenmeyer

---

Then click on the PDF button and you can download a copy of the article here
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4167/3592 And you can follow the same path for reference (2) :Radiocarbon (abstract)
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4172/3597 Curiously I can still find it in the article referenced (4) per above. Of course this means looking at the reference.Note that this is a scientific journal and the articles don't change after being published. They are also peer reviewed and tested by other scientists. And you should now be able to find those links, with the information I have provided. The reference lists are there for a purpose, not just window-dressing. BBC is a news organization not a scientific journal. It appears that you don't know how (or want) to find "good sources" but are really looking for bad or questionable sources. So somebody tried to do a poor job of matching and intentionally got poor results that they could post to fool the gullibles. Amazing. Proof once again that if you want to see lies and misinformation about science that you should go to a creationist site. Thanks for another creationist hoax link.Unfortunately this still does nothing to explain the correlations: why do the four independent dendrochronologies from different locations, different ecologies and different species match with 99.5% accuracy for 8,000 plus years?Why do the four dendrochronologies show the same ratio of 14C/12C at the same ages?All you have done is the standard creationist attempt to discredit a system that invalidates their beliefs, and you still need to address why the correlations occur if the method is so problematic.Perhaps it is because the science knows how and corrects for the problems that you have brought up, because scientists spend the time to do more than just a couple of ad hoc comparisons. Yes, I note that what you quoted says

quote:

---

Nevertheless dendrochronology is a reliable dating method. Why? The always used basic principle for the building of tree-ring chronologies and their application for datings is called replication. It should be illustrated by an example (Baillie 1983): If two tree-ring patterns A and B are similar to each other and a third tree-ring series C is found, which is similar to A, then C must be similar also to B at the same position; all further tree-ring patterns, which are similar to A, must be similar to B and C, etc. The reliability of a dendrochronological dating is based on these repeated agreements and mutual controls during the building of a chronology and, as much as possible, with each dating.

---

In other words, this shows how the science corrects for the problems of just using simple matches, as was done in your intentionally misleading "detectingdesign.com" link. It tells you why the system is a reliable method.Now, are you going to address the correlations or play more games?Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua ''' misrepresentation of dendrochronology. Try using a scientific article instead of one from a lawyer creationist who doesn't know truth from fiction. Ah the fallacy of public appeal. Unfortunately, for you, we are talking about science and not popularity.Curiously the last time I checked 441,000>34,900 ... by an order of magnitude.Google RAZD ... About 2,000,000 results ... not all of which are me of course.Google scholar dendrochronology About 18,900 results
Google scholar "tree rings" About 36,800 results
Google scholar Jzyehoshua 1 result ... having to do with voter deception, not with science.
Google scholar RAZD EvC About 23 results, the first four being me, and the third having to do with this thread ...Of course an informed individual knows that regular google is influenced by the number of posts a person makes, not necessarily on people looking it up. It is also influenced by being on posts on sites like this. All you have shown is that you are prolific, not correct or popular. NONE of which explains the 99.5% accuracy between four independent chronologies, from different locations, from different ecologies, from different species. ALL of which are controlled for in proper scientific processes, as detailed in the articles about how scientists to the work. Do you not understand that sources of error are actually discussed by the scientists along with ways and means to control their effect in the overall results?Your "detectingdesign" link is giving you misinformation deliberately to fool gullible people. All people like this need to do is look up the scientific process, go to where sources of error are discussed, then replicate those errors intentionally and claim that they have found a problem with the method while failing to mention the means used to control the error.Your complete lack of skepticism for websites like this is astounding for someone who claims to be a skeptic that checks all their sources.Enjoy.

Hi JzyehoshuaDo you know what a correlation is? It does not appear that you do, as you have not discussed them at all.

quote:

---

correlation -- n
1. a mutual or reciprocal relationship between two or more things
2. the act or process of correlating or the state of being correlated
3. statistics the extent of correspondence between the ordering of two variables. Correlation is positive or direct when two variables move in the same direction and negative or inverse when they move in opposite directions

---

What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age, climate and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?It should be stunningly obvious that the methodology is both accurate and consistently so when done properly. I'm glad you said one of the best ... because it isn't very good for you:

quote:

---

A literal understanding of the biblical chronologies places the Flood no earlier than about 2,500 B.C. and the creation no earlier than about 6,000 B.C. (Allowance for unlisted names in the biblical chronologies pushes back these dates, but not much). Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long. The presence of fossiliferous sediment under the BCPs rules out any of them being pre-Flood. So, unless we choose to push the Flood back many thousands of years, effectively disregarding biblical chronologies, how can the conflicting chronologies be reconciled?

​

Conclusions

​

The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further.

---

They have to make up "migrating ring-disturbing events" ... and then hypothesize thousands of them occurring even though there is no evidence of them not being accounted for in the scientific analysis. There analysis is bogus, and one way for you to see this is their claim re 14C ages

quote:

---

... It too allows for the march-in-step of BCP chronology with C-14 dates, which were artificially old to a greater-and-greater extent ...

---

The 14C dates are actually younger than the tree ring dates, not older, and the tree rings are being used to calibrate the 14C dates, not the other way around. If you are truly a skeptical investigator then this should raise big red flags about the accuracy of their information. Which is not the case here. Which is accounted for when they do the cross-matching. the changes in SIZE of the tree rings does not change the COUNT of the rings, and the patterns of climate are the same even though one tree produces thicker rings in general than another tree (ie due to age and ecological factors). It is the pattern not the absolute thickness. ... you still cannot explain the correlations.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, still doing the creationist shuck and jive eh? Amusingly this shows very clearly how tree ring data can provide climate information.But the questions for you are

1. does this affect the tree ring counts for the trees in question?
2. If yes how is this affected?
3. does this affect the correlations with the other dendrochronologies?
4. If no why not?

Do you even begin to understand that this is essentially irrelevant because it does not affect the dendrochronology nor the correlations with the other dendrochronologies?Do you understand that you are demonstrating an apparent inability to learn the basics of dendrochronology when you post things like this?You have now posted over 25 posts on this thread and not one of them addresses the correlations.That is epic fail.Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, welcome to the thread. Thank you for saying that. This is the initial stages of this thread information, but a good starting point.It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous. Curiously, that is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to show the evidence that invalidates the concept of a young earth.Enjoy.

Thanks foreveryoung, I would not characterize that as young earth so much as middle-age earth (as opposed to old age earthers which accept 4.55 billion years).We can get to this later. There may be some that would be interested in a new thread on this.Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, And this should be (and has been) discussed on your thread.it is off-topic here where the issue is correlations between dating methods, including the correlations between radioactive dating methods and non-radioactive dating methods that show the accuracy of the radioactive dating methods.Enjoy.

Hi dwise1 A great topic for a new thread.Enjoy.

Hi Chuck77, hope you are well. The dendrochronologies are built up from living trees and from dead trees and fallen trees and even on some bits and pieces of trees (anything large enough to have enough rings to be able to match sufficiently with climate patterns of other pieces).(1) If there had been a world wide flood for the duration purported to occur and under the conditions purported to apply, there would have been a point at which there were no living trees, and there would be no evidence bridging any gap between pre-flood and post-flood growth -- without invoking some miracle anyway.(2) If there had been a world wide flood then any loose bits of wood would have floated away.Logically then, a complete dendrochronology should only be able to be compiled in a post-flood time.This point is also recognized by AIG: Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

... Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long. The presence of fossiliferous sediment under the BCPs rules out any of them being pre-Flood. ...

---

Similar considerations would apply to the other three dendrochronologies, especially as they do not have the long lives of the Bristlecone Pines, yet they all agree with a 99.5% accuracy.Enjoy.

Hi JonFforeveryoung moved his post to Message 127 of Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?. Please reply thereEnjoy

Hi JzyehoshuaI've reposted part of your new thread here to debate the dating methodology you are challenging. Your challenge here is to explain the correlations between these methodologies and why -- if the methods are so weak -- they correlate so well. Please read from Message 1 through the various methods before replying.from Message 2 of thread Climategate Email Quotes on Dendrochronology, Ice Cores, and Coral Dating in the Proposed New Topics forum

quote:

---

From the Climategate emails, it appears evident the multiproxy dating approach actually involves methods which all have serious methodology issues. Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods. They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. It is very obvious from reading the emails how shoddy the research behind such methods, as performed by the same clique responsible for Climategate, really has been.

​

I realize certain people on this forum believe very strongly in these methods, so I thought I'd see what thoughts are about the obvious flaws as witnessed from the Climategate emails.

---

Curiously, those methods are discussed in detail in this thread, where no creationist has yet been able to explain the correlations between the methodologies -- perhaps you can be the first in over 963 posts to do this.

quote:

---

Message 1: Correlations Correlations Correlations

​

We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms.

​

To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be.

​

The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.

​

Note that to date no creationist has been able to address this issue: the previous version has run to 779 posts on the previous threads (Version 1, numbers 1, 2 and 3) closed due to the length of the threads or to terminal off topic rants.

​

Very few of the responses actually address the issue of correlations, and none have been able to explain even two correlations being validations for the dating methods.

---

It's your move.Enjoy.

Hi JzyehoshuaYou don't need to 'yell' (bold everything) - I read it the first time.Simple question: have you read this thread for the posts covering the same methodologies and how they DO correlate? Message 2 to Message 8?If not, you may be using second or third hand information, instead of primary information. Note that I have included in the references links to the primary papers involved.The ones here covering tree rings and varve layers were very skeptically evaluated by the scientists working on carbon 14 dating corrections due to climate\solar effects on 14C production and changes in the past.On the tree chronologies there are three that run over 8,000 years with an error of 0.5%, each independently derived and each from different locations on the earth. This error was considered too much for the 14C correlation people so they discarded the outlier to reduce it. Such is the amount of error that was involved - rather insignificant imho.abe:

quote:

---

It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.

​

Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.

​

Sincerely, Jeff [Severinghaus]

---

If there were a temperature effect, then it should be different between the Bristlecone Pines (top of the Sierra Mountains, high elevation affecting temperatures) and the oaks (~ocean level temperatures), and this is the one discarded for the 0.5% error. Still insignificant imho./abeEnjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added endEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi Jzyehoshua,Sorry, I missed this one earlier. There is some discussion on Topic Proposal Issues Message 444 regarding your proposed post and I think\agree that the scam\fraud part should be better addressed on the Global Warming is a Scam as it already addresses the scam issue.If you want to take it there I will be happy to follow.Note we are just trying to sort your issues out to the best threads to address the issues.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi NoNukes, Challenge the dating here yes, pursue the scam aspect no - that is better under the other existing scam thread.They are related but separate issues, and can be treated better on two threads than one, imho.Enjoy.

Hi JonF Agreed, they tell us a bit of what the biology and climate was like, rather than the ages when they were produced\consumed etc by biological processes, but they need to be tied into dates to be of value.And while they are not used for dating per se, they ARE used for correlations on this thread. See Message 9 for examples. These correlations tie the radiometric (thorium-230 and Protactinium-231) methodology dates to the ice core dates, validating those methods.That does make them topical.And, of course, if doubt is cast on the ice core data, then one also needs to explain how the correlations with both of the radiometric methods occur simultaneously to give the exact same errors.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : englshEdited by RAZD, : clrty