Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You did. At least, it seemed that way, what with you appealing to lurkers like they're on your side.Just letting you know, that's not really the case. I and the people I've shown this topic to think about the same thing that everyone participating in this thread does.Anyway, I'm not here to debate with you, RAZD and everyone else are doing a fine job of that by themselves. Have a nice day.Edited by lasthero, : No reason given.

Sure they do. They even found the crater.So, again I ask, do you have some evidence they don't?No, I don't think you do. Just your knee-jerk reaction to real evidence you are incapable of understanding.

This is off topic on this thread. Feel free to spread your ignorance on DNA on a new thread.Enjoy

So you still can't explain the correlations, and instead post twaddle. Predictable.You're in an axe fight and you don't even know what an axe is. When you start dealing with the reality of the correlations let me know.Enjoy

More evidence that you live in a fantasy world. You have not made a single challenging post, just wasted band-width.If anything, the correlations have defeated your argument from fantasy. You haven't gotten past Message 2 on this thread.You may be interested in the updated version that has more details, The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 8

quote:

---

This chronology was again updated and extended in 1972 to 6,291 BCE:

​

Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine Prior to 4000 BC (PDF)⁽²⁾

​

quote:

---

Twenty-one bristlecone pine remnants with all or a portion of their tree-ring record earlier than 4000 B.C. have been dendrochronologically dated. These are summarized in Table 1, ...

​

TABLE 1. Components of the bristlecone pine chronology prior to 4000 B.C., with the related interval in years B.C., ...

Specimen TRL no.	Interval, years-BC	...	...
65-F131	4205-3102	...	...
(intermediate samples skipped for clarity)
71-59	5951-5481	...	...
69-202D	6291-5106	...	...
67-40	508 years (undated)	...	...

​

---

​

Note that the last specimen in Table 1 is "floating," because it didn't match up to any of the previous ring sequences and it is not shown in Figure 2. This results in a chronology that goes back to 6,291 BCE by absolute chronology and to at least 6,799 BCE if the floating specimen is added somewhere before the beginning of the continuous chronology. For our purposes only the 6,291 BCE beginning date is useful as an unbroken annual count.

​

There is a second Bristlecone pine chronology that was developed independently of the master chronology (and using no common samples), and it provides additional information:

​

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale⁽³⁾

​

quote:

---

... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values ...
... Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony.

​

A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronology comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. The Methuselah chronology very probably contains no dating error, at least back to 3435 BC.

---

​

The time scale used here is the same "extended scale," where 8000 equals 1 BCE, so 8001-5859 = 2142 BCE and 8001 - 5330 = 2671 BCE. The "M" designates the Master chronology above.

​

The difference found was that two rings were missing from the second chronology and they matched two rings in the older chronology that were narrow growth rings rather than extra rings. The new chronology did not extend the age of the old chronology, but it did validate and strengthen the Master absolute Bristlecone pine dendrochronology from 1970 CE through 3,435 BCE.

​

Note that missing rings showed the resulting chronology was too short (under counted). Because of this cross-checking, with only two errors, we can have high confidence that the Master Bristlecone pine chronology is indeed a minimum record of annual tree rings firmly anchored in the present and extending to at least 6,291 BCE.

---

You ask for a tiny tid-bits of rather irrelevant information, something that has no bearing on the correlations, and you think you have struck gold. That the tid-bits are in the data files seems irrelevant to you. Sad.But you forget the correlations are the issue, not the little tid-bits of rather irrelevant information.As such you serve as a shining example of how intellectually corrupt creationism is in dealing with the evidence. You aren't even rising to the level of some other creationists that have actually taken the time to learn what they are talking about.You just blather nonsense. Comments like this just give me an opportunity to show you what you are up against.This is from Message 1:

quote:

---

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.

​

Summary of the Age Dating Correlations Covered:

​

For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up - there are a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand:

​

• Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
• European Oaks - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
• German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
• Lake Suigetsu Varves - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Annual Layers of Ice - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Ice Cores in Greenland - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
• Ice Cores in Antarctica - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
• The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data
• Talking Coral Heads - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
• Discussion of Radiometric Correlations - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
• The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.
• Theme Song - just for fun.

​

Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.

---

Pretending there is a "former nature" without any evidence of any change in nature is just fantasy twaddle.The tid-bits of information you ask for (where is the ring for 4,500 years ago) are not any kind of critique of the Bristlecone pine chronology, because we know it is there, It is in the sections of the Prometheus tree. It doesn't need to be pointed out just for your benefit. Because that section is only one part of the Bristlecone pine chronology that has been validated six ways from sunday by teams of scientist, who -- shockingly -- all fail to notice the evidence of any change in nature.The tree rings also correlate with marine varves:

quote:

---

Message 17: The varve chronology was updated in 2004, with improved matches to the dendrochronologies (including the dendrochronological match anchoring the pine chronology to the oak chronology as discussed in Message 16, Anchoring The Floating German Pine Chronolog), there were some revisions and additions to the varve chronology, and the wiggle match was updated as well:

​

Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core⁽⁴⁾

​

quote:

---

...Tree-ring chronologies provide high-resolution calibration back to ~12,400 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue), but dendrochronologies beyond that age are currently "floating" and not anchored in absolute age (Kromer et al., this issue). For the previous IntCal98 data set (Stuiver et al. 1998), high-resolution calibration data older than tree rings were provided by Cariaco Basin piston core PL07-PC56 (Hughen et al. 1998). Core 56PC was selected for 14C dating from a suite of 4 adjacent piston cores, mostly due to the quality of its high-resolution grayscale record. The core was sampled every 10 cm, yielding approximately 100- to 200-yr resolution. Cariaco piston core PL07-58PC, on the other hand, has a ~25% higher deposition rate than 56PC (Peterson et al. 1990). Core 58PC was sampled every 1.5 cm, providing 14C calibration at 10—15-yr resolution throughout the period of deglaciation, ~10,500 - 14,700 cal BP (Hughen et al. 2000). ... Here, we present the updated anchoring of the floating Cariaco varve chronology to the revised and extended German pine chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue). In addition, we detail the changes made to the calendar age varve chronology between the publication of the 56PC and 58PC 14C calibrations, ...

​

---

​

Thus we see a remarkable consilience between the dendrochonology data and the varve data which gives a very strong tethering for the varve chronology.

---

You have not even begun to tackle the numerous correlations in this thread.Meanwhile you are roaming around an axe match canvas mat (without and axe) looking at tid-bits and claiming that we can't tell if the stains are actually bloodstains from previous fighters ... because that was a former fight, ... even though blood analysis says it is human blood.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Some do some don't, but all know that there is no god detector. If god does exist it doesn't want to be studied. That is just bullshit. Scientists are aware of history and the role it has played in the advancement of our knowledge.You are the one who denies knowledge of history and who falsely claims fiction and fantasy are history. Oh, scientists are well aware that fantasy and imagination are real human experiences, they also know they do not represent reality.I have no idea why you put "...etc etc." in there because there is no clue what it refers to. True, you claim science is religion, while scientists know that science is a method to determine how nature and the Universe work.It seems that you are unable to understand the simplest concepts about science or fiction.

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Right, in their imaginations. There are no spiritual parts of history, so no scientist bothers denying it because we know it is just fantasy and imagination. You sure like using this meaningless phrase. I guess you think it makes you look like you know what you're talking about, it doesn't.

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

I don't deny there were fictional beings that primitive people believed were real. Just because lots of people believe in imaginary, fictional beings doesn't make them real.Every 4 year old in America believes in Santa Claus. Grow up.