Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Correlations Faith, correlations means we have high confidence in the results. Certainly when a single Bristlecone pine is 5,068 years old with no effect of a flood reaching it's mountaintop this means no flood in that period, period.When we also have two independent dendrochronologies from nearby areas and they also (a) match each other, ring for ring except for two missing rings in one lining up with very narrow rings in the other, and (b) match the ages of this single tree, AND not show any effec of a flood reaching their mountaintops, this becomes much more than a single piece of evidence, because it means this covers a wider area than a single specimen.Then we have the two independent oak dendrochronologies that match each other AND the Bristlecone pine dendrochronologies, one from peat marshes in Ireland and one from river valleys in Germany and THEY show no effects of massive floods in their areas, then the only logical conclusion is that no flood occurred in these times.The dendrochronologies extend more than 12,000 years into the past with no visible effect of a massive world wide flood.And they are the tip of the iceberg of layer by layer age measurements.No special training is needed to count layers.Enjoy

Demonstrating again your ignorance of what makes a tree ring annual. There are distinct markers for the different seasons of the year.Also demonstrating that you have no idea of the problems with this bind assertion -- like how do you get the 14C levels to match the ring counts, how you get the rings to match the marine and lake varves.AND you need a mechanism that accomplishes these changes in such a way that there is no visible transition.Enoy

Rather obviously it starts in the present and extends into the past by the simple counting of annual rings.The correlations are consistent and cross-referenced between several different methods.As you say, "Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature," and therefore it validates the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "former nature" during this time. And yet you have not challenged the correlations at all, you have provided no evidence of your fantasy "former nature" and no cause for anyone to think your assertions are worth the bandwidth you have wasted.Enjoy

(1) you have said that the flood occurred in 4,500 years ago in your fantasy years, but that this translates to 70,000,000 years ago in actual scientific years. You seem to be confused which years you are using.(2) you have not established any time frame for this fantasy "former nature" to occur, or any way to distinguish it from the current nature.(3) you still haven't accounted for the C14 levels measured in the tree rings that correlate with the ages of the annual tree rings.Until you do your assertions mean squat.Enjoy

Quite simply, the C14 levels are a measurable, verified quantity that is fact.When the C14 levels for a specific tree ring count are the same for dendrochronologies around the world that too is a measurable, independently verified fact.When the C14 levels correlated with tree ring ages form an exponential curve with predictable decreases the older the tree rings are, that too is a measurable, verified fact.Tree rings form in a consistent pattern of growth for different seasons of the year. This too is a measurable, verified fact.Variations in weather and climate patterns are shown by their effect on those growth patterns, with the rings formed today being noticeably wider than those of a decade or a century ago because of warmer climate. This too is a measurable, verified fact.The tree rings also conform to historical facts, demonstrating accuracy as far back as history takes us -- this too is a measurable, verified fact.Thus we know that both tree rings and C14 levels accurately measure age for the period covered independently by history:

quote:

---

EvC Forum: The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)

​

Next we have consilience with biblical accounts:

​

Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, part 4

​

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:

​

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?

---

These ages are all measurable, independently verified fact.Meanwhile you are an old (scientific) age denier that has not provided a single explanation for a single one of these result.You seems to have a personal fantasy concept that places a mythical flood at 4500 years ago in your fantasy time, but you then claim to correlate that with 70,000,000 years ago in scientifically documented and cross correlated time, by using some hocus pocus magical "former time" -- for which you have provided absolutely no means to distinguish from today. You have no measurable facts, and no independent verification for your fantasy -- it belongs to you alone. A perfect example of an immeasurable, unverifiable bald assertion void of any factual basis. Note the total lack of specificity on time, the total lack of any means to detect such magic mysterious transformation and the lack of commitment ... because it is made up ad hoc hokum.This also is another example of your confusion between your magic time 4500 year history with the actual scientific 70,000,000 year history -- it seems you keep trying to use both at the same time.Perhaps you could try to provide us with a scale correlating your magical time frame with the actual scientific time frame.You claim to have it worked out ... let's see it.Enjoy

Because each ring has a slightly different C14 amount from the ones before and after it, what it means is that each ring forms either (1) with a different "pre-decayed" level or (2) that sufficient time has passed between ring formations that sufficient decay has occurred in that time (a year, say) to result in the levels seen today.If (1), then please provide a mechanism to "pre-decay" the C14 in precisely the exponential pattern seen in the rings today.If (2), AND you want it to happen in a shorter time period, then please provide (a) a mechanism to grow complete rings with precisely the annual pattern seen today, but within a shorter time-span, and (b) a mechanism to transition seamlessly to the annual pattern seen today, PLUS (c) a mechanism to accelerate the decay in the early days and then transition that to match what we see today.Without even a hint of any of these mechanisms to have ever existed, what they mean is that any fact based rationally minded person will conclude that they represent annual rings and that the C14 levels validate that conclusion. You have it backwards, if you are going to make a claim that there was a different state in the past than in the present, then the onus is on YOU to prove your claim is something other that fantasy. You have failed to provide anything to support your fantasy so far.ie - YOU need to prove that I'm wrong.AND, curiously, I don't need to "prove" a same state in the past, because there is no evidence, cause or reason to even begin to think otherwise. Especially when the growth rings show a consistent pattern matching known annual growth rings today AND the C14 levels match the C14 decay curve for the annual count ages of the rings, to say nothing of the rest of the evidence in this thread.All that needs to be done is to compare one to the other on the basis of evidence for and against, to show which is the rational logical choice.That has been done in spades: there is a mountain of evidence for the past being similar to today (this thread provides a small portion of that evidence), and squat evidence for it being even minutely different. Blathering about a different nature in the past in no way addresses the correlations. Read the link (you can sign up for free access): "The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18)" ... where "Shaw (18) refers to :Shaw, Ed., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).History, without using decay, shocking ... have fun.Enjoy

And if pigs could fly, a different nature could mean they wouldn't need wings.What you are forgetting is (a) you have no evidence of a different nature (b) no means to test for a different nature and (c) -- most importantly -- that this fantasy cannot explain the correlation with the tree rings, including your fantasy concept of tree rings growing in days.That this absolutely fails to explain the correlations is obvious because you have neither explained the actual tree ring counts nor the actual measured C14 amounts in those tree rings.Made up fantasy is not evidence, nor is it argument that invalidates arguments based on evidence, all it amounts to is wishful thinking to fool yourself. Wrong.You claim it is wrong, therefore you need to demonstrate/show why you think that it is wrong, else you are just spouting fantasy and wishful thinking. Curiously neither fantasy nor wishful thinking are scientific refutations of the correlations nor the methods used to determine age, ...
it's just you fooling yourself with wishful thinking fantasy.As long as there is no evidence of a different nature, there is no need to modify science that is based on the evidence of age, because science is based on evidence not fantasy. It's readily available on line ... and any fool could look it up if truly interested ... for instance:Pharaonic Egypt | Ian Shaw - Academia.edu

quote:

---

Chapter 50
PHARAONIC EGYPT
SHAW 04/18/2013

​

INTRODUCTION

​

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Egyptian archaeology is the existence of a very large corpus of ancient written material (comprising texts in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts), which allows the surviving material culture of the Pharaonic period (c.3100-312 BC) to be considered within a rich and diverse cognitive context that is not available for most other regions of Africa until comparatively recent times. ...

​

EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA: ISSUES OF MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY

​

Table 50.1 Pharaonic Egypt: chronological chart

Prehistory
Baderian Period	c.4500—3800 BC
Amratian (Naqada I) Period	c.4000—3500 BC
Gerzean (Naqada II) Period	c.3500-3200 BC
Naqada III/‘Dynasty 0’	c.3200-3000 BC
PHARAONIC/DYNASTIC PERIOD (c.3000—332 BC)
Early Dynastic Period	3000-2686 BC
1st Dynasty	3000-2890 BC
2nd Dynasty	280-2686 BC
Old Kingdom	2686-2181 BC
3rd Dynasty	2686-2613 BC
...	(see link)

​

The names and relative dates of the various rulers and dynasties in the Pharaonic period derive from a number of textual sources. These sources include the Aegyptiaca, a history compiled by an Egyptian priest called Manetho in the early 3rd century (Wadell), and much earlier ‘king-lists’ that give the names and sequences of rulers as recorded on the walls of tombs and temples, but also in papyri (such as the Nineteenth Dynasty document known as the Royal Turin Canon) and elsewhere, such as the list in the Wadi Hammamat greywacke quarries; Redford (1986). It is usually presumed that Manetho himself used king-lists of these types as his sources.

​

Egypt’s ‘traditional’ absolute chronology tends to rely on complex webs of textual references, combining such elements as names, dates, and genealogical information into an overall historical framework that is more reliable in some periods than in others (e.g. Kitchen 1991). The two most important documents for assigning absolute dates to the traditional Egyptian chronological framework are two records of the ‘heliacal rising’ of the dog-star Sirius, one dating to the late Twelfth Dynasty, the other to the early Eighteenth (Krauss 1985). By assigning absolute dates to these documents, Egyptologists have been able to extrapolate a set of absolute dates for the whole of the Pharaonic period, on the basis of records of the lengths of reign of the other kings of the Middle and New Kingdoms (e.g. Hornung et al. (2006). Because of its well-respected traditional chronological framework, Egyptology was one of the first archaeological disciplines to benefit from radiocarbon dating, since, in the late 1940s, a series of well-dated Egyptian artefacts were used as bench-marks to assess the reliability of the newly invented radiocarbon technique (Libby 1955). The subsequent recognition of the necessity of calibrating radiocarbon years in order to anchor them in actual time (Shaw 1985; Hassan and Robinson 1987) still left concerns that the available radiocarbon dates for Egypt and Nubia sometimes appear to differ significantly from the conventional chronology (Bonani et al. 2001). However, a recent systematic attempt to radiocarbon date samples of known age (through either their archaeological context or associated textual data) has been largely successful in demonstrating good synchronization between radiocarbon dates and the conventional chronology (Dee et al. 2010).

---

The astute reader will note that (A) the Old Kingdom -- the time frame pertinent to this issue -- is well within the Pharaonic/Dynastic Period that is dated absolutely by historical documents and astronomical information, and (B) that these absolute chronological dates were used to calibrate the radiocarbon dating ... rather than radiocarbon dating being used to date these periods. Sadly, for you, links are provided for interested people to further their education and knowledge, so that people with a real interest in the issue can follow them, the way footnotes and reference lists are provided in professional papers. Not following them shows a lack of interest and a preference for ignorance.If you followed the links and read them, then you likely wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself with silly comments. Yes, funny how you keep saying this when you are then shown to be ignorant and uniformed on the issue.Perhaps you think you made a significant point, but it's just a balloon full of hot air that is easily popped.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The chronology developed by Ian Shaw used the available evidence, and yes part of it is the kings list, but only where it can be validated, corrected, for periods where kings overlapped, and this limits it to the Pharaonic Period (c.3000—332 BC), and not to the "early leaders" of the pre-Pharaonic Period where spirits are listed. But it also used validation with the dates for the rising of the dog-star Sirius:

quote:

---

... The two most important documents for assigning absolute dates to the traditional Egyptian chronological framework are two records of the ‘heliacal rising’ of the dog-star Sirius, one dating to the late Twelfth Dynasty, the other to the early Eighteenth (Krauss 1985). By assigning absolute dates to these documents, Egyptologists have been able to extrapolate a set of absolute dates for the whole of the Pharaonic period, on the basis of records of the lengths of reign of the other kings of the Middle and New Kingdoms (e.g. Hornung et al. (2006). ...

---

The chronology was so well developed and accepted as valid that it was used to correct the early radiometric data and start the process of calibration of C14 dating.The issue at hand here is the correlation of C14 levels from artifacts in Old Kingdom tombs with the oak tree ring chronology. The Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) is well within the Pharaonic Period, as it follows the Early Dynastic Period (3000-2686 BC) with it's absolute dates.You asked These questions are answered. C14 was not used by Shaw, was not used to establish the Egyptian chronology for the period covering the artifacts in question, where their measured C14 levels correlate with measured C14 levels of the oak tree ring chronology, validating those ages.Your question is answered.Your task is to explain these correlations if they are in error. You have not done that, you have not even started to do that. Posting nonsense assertions does not explain the correlations.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Nope.You asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates.I provided you with that information.The question to answer is not how the ages were developed, but why they correlate to the same ages with the measured C14 levels in the oak tree chronology for those ages by annual ring count. Again, you asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates.I provided you with that information.The FACT that the levels of C14 found in wood artifacts from the Old Kingdom period match the levels of C14 found in the oak tree annual rings for the same age count means that they correlate for that age.The question you are not addressing is why such correlation exists.Your job is not to laugh at the information, but to explain how/why that correlation occurred if either system (or both) are erroneous.What is the mechanism that causes these to systems of measuring age to agree. The older tree ages are measured with core samples, and they are kept in a lab. Dendrochronology is done by matching tree rings between samples of different ages. You want to see them then go to the source. You can wait a long time. This is nothing but a desperate red-herring attempt to divert the thread from the issue of the correlations between age measurement systems.There are four independent dendrochronologies that span the time from the present to over 5,000 years ago, plus one single living tree where the core sample showed an age over 5,000 years.Those four dendrochronologies match each other for measured C14 levels at the same annual ring counts (the living tree has not been tested for C14 levels). We have also seen that there are correlations with historical dates to the same ages denoted by the tree rings for matching measured C14 levels. That is the evidence for these ages being valid absolute annual ages.They are valid because of the correlations, so if you question the age you have to explain the correlations.Your job is to explain the correlations.You haven't yet explained the correlations.You haven't yet even attempted to explain the correlations.Enjoy

Curiously this has nothing to do with age correlations, which you agree you cannot explain.Please take this to another thread.Thanks

NOT FOR THIS THREADGo somewhere else

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. 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). 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. 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. 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.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

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. 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

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. And you have not shown that they are vague or incorrect. Another worthless claim. Oh look, I did yours -- again -- in Message 891, because it was easy. 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. 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: 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.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Curiously this babbling does not show any errors in the chronologies, nor does it deal with them having the same measured actual levels of C14 for the same age according to the chronologies. Using the actual C14 levels does not involve decay "dating" but objective empirical evidence.What you call "wiggle room" is the margin of error, and at only 1.9% it shows a strong correlation, one with high confidence in the precision of the age measurements.They correlate for the same age from two different chronologies, one Egyptian and one dendrochronological, the question for you is why.You have yet to provide any evidence for any change in nature in the past, so your arguments based of your fantasy are ... fantasy.You also have presented no evidence for a world wide flood. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the topic to present your evidence. I don't think you will, because there is none.Enjoy