Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Thank you again for proving my point that you can't deal with the correlations, as this once again confirms the age of the earth being old old old is still hasn't been refuted. Thank you for confirming what I posted in Message 1215 and again in Message 1226, that creationists are incapable of dealing with the correlations, explaining the details with something other than fantasy, denial and false statements.You have not demonstrated circular reasoning at all (do you even know what it is?). Curiously just making claims proves nothing. Nope. YOU have failed to show even a tid-bit of evidence that there ever was any other nature, and instead blindly assert it with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Creationist "science" at it's best.When you assert something like a different nature, the onus is on you to show that there ever was a different nature, and to support that with objective empirical evidence. All you do is ride in on your one-trick pony and dump a load of shinola assertions that is pure fantasy without a fact to be found. The void sucks your argument away because you failed at the first, failed again every post since, and continue to fail to provide contrary evidence.Without contrary evidence, ALL the evidence known shows natural processes proceeding naturally into the past as far back as we can test and verify. There is no known point at which it changes. You have shown no evidence to think otherwise.AND you have verified this by your failing to even attempt to explain the correlations, even the most basic correlations.The correlations win again.Enjoy

When did you do that? Did you show them pigs fly too? What journal is it published in?Making a statement is not showing, it is telling an anecdote, a fiction, a fable. It can have facts -- "that's a chair" -- for instance, but that doesn't make the whole statement factual. Nope. The onus is on you to prove your claim, because the sciences have already provided their work in research paper that have been peer-reviewed in scientific journals and cross-checked by alternate systems. Their conclusions are accepted as the best knowledge we have to understand the universe ... subject to change if anomalous information is discovered. When anomalous information is discovered it is the onus of the person/s making the discovery to explain it, publish it and have it peer reviewed -- not the rest of the science community to prove their science all over again. That would be you.But you're all hat, riding in on your one-trick pony statement without a single fact to back you up, and -- sadly for you once again -- you still have not explained the correlations.See, this is part of science and "new ideas/concept" as well, that the new paradigm has to explain all the existing information/evidence, and incorporate the new anomalous information into a new paradigm with a fuller explanation. Relativity vs Newton. The person that this job falls on is the promoter of the new paradigm -- so the onus is on your slack shoulders.Failure to tackle the correlations means that you are failing the test of this thread, that your paradigm is failing the test of this thread, and that because of that failure, demonstrating that you do not have a better explanation, and demonstrating that your paradigm is a puff of smoke with no basis on facts and no usefulness in the world.So prattle on if you want. But you lose when ever you provide no explanation for the correlations. That's 221 posts and 221 losses on this thread so far. Indeed, when you show something other than bald unsupported assertions you will make a start. Possibly ... but it 's about time you started providing more than simple fantasy.Enjoy You have that mixed up.Nobody here is claiming the tree rings are "fake" here but you, so you need some proof that the current nature did not exist then, and describe that previous nature and point out when it changed, how it changed and how that affected all the dating techniques in such a perfect manner that the correlations still occurred.You are woefully behind in that work ... you still haven't explained a single correlation, and so, still losing the debate. Still demonstrating that creationism is a total failure at proving the earth is young.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Irrelevant.Another total failure to deal with the correlations. Your loss. Again. Nope. You need to show why they still correlate when they are derived from different fact based methods. You have no idea what you are up against. You don't know what evidence is.Think of two roads crossing at the correlation point. If you change one road, you need to change the other road in a way that will maintain that intersection. Now add a third road that intersects the other two ... you need to change it as well ... etc etc etc.If you change them all together the same way, then you haven't changed the nature of their intersections/interactions and the original "map" still applies.The correlations win because you cannot explain them with your simplistic lame made up fantasies, because they would need to change in different ways to produce similar results.EnjoyThis might help: Cor•re•la•tion⁽⁴⁾ Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more accurate or precise than concordance.Edited by RAZD, : .

There is no evidence of a change in nature, no start point, no measure of change, nothing. This is no explanation for the correlations.The Correlations win again.Your biggest problem is that you have castrated what you accept as reasonable argument to such a degree that you can't say anything about it. No correlations should exist -- evidence that you are wrong -- as everything should be jumbled, and you cannot trust any narrative that comes from outside your bubble, not one ... including Christian creation.One trick pony.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

That would mean going to where the evidence is. Failing that your best option is:

1. Learn the basics about dendrochronology, and
2. Look at pictures that are available.

You can start here: The Age of the Earth v3p1, message 7: Dendrochronology Basicsand look at pictures like this one: Prometheus section with over 4800 annual rings.Also see Message 1010 and Message 1070 for more pictures and information.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Cool stuff.Now if we can tie the tree rings to the climate patterns in the varve and ice layers ... then maybe we could introduce lines of magnetic change in the sea bed to the calculations of age.Enjoy

[ /quote] has an extra space in it.Error - Cookies Turned Off -- needs to be addressed by Percy SubdailyScale Chemical Variability in a Torreites Sanchezi Rudist Shell: Implications for Rudist Paleobiology and the Cretaceous DayNight Cycle

quote:

---

Both proxybased paleoclimate reconstructions and climate models characterize the Campanian (83.6 0.5 to 72.1 0.2 Ma; Gradstein et al., 2012) as a warm stage with large fluctuations in climate and sea level (Friedrich et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 2001). Campanian global mean annual surface temperatures are estimated to have been 2—4 C warmer than today, with a reduced equatortopole temperature gradient (Amiot et al., 2004; Friedrich et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2002). Warm intervals such as the Campanian provide important insights into processes of climate and environmental change that operate during periods with elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations (>500 ppm in the Campanian; Gao et al., 2015), such as those predicted for the end of the twentyfirst century (Meehl et al., 2007; Price et al., 2013). Most deeptime (preQuaternary) climate reconstructions have so far focused on longterm changes in climate and environment on orbital to tectonic time scales (103—108 years; Zachos et al., 2001; Veizer & Prokoph, 2015). However, crucial information can be obtained from the still poorly understood changes on a shorter, human (subannual to decadal) time scale. Combined with longterm climate records, such highresolution, snapshot reconstructions improve current understanding of the dynamics of greenhouse climates and the effect of rapid climate change on the environment. Furthermore, the combination of low and highresolution data allows us to study the full spectrum of continuum climate variability and bridge the gap between long and shortterm changes in climate (Huybers & Curry, 2006).

​

Not only is the study of subdaily resolved records important for understanding environmental change at even higher (daily) temporal resolution, it also enables more accurate estimations of the length of astronomical cycles (e.g., diurnal, tidal, and annual; Bills & Ray, 1999; Williams, 2000). When applied on fossil bioarchives, these observations shed light on the evolution of the EarthMoon system on geological time scales (Williams, 2000). This information helps to improve constraints on geologic dating through cyclostratigraphy and yields boundary conditions for astronomical models (Berger et al., 1989; Laskar et al., 2004; Meyers & Malinverno, 2018).

​

Accurately dated and wellpreserved hard tissues (e.g., fossil mollusk shells, corals, and bioapatites) are valuable archives of subannual to multidecadal paleoenvironmental change (Butler et al., 2013; Fricke et al., 1998; Gothmann et al., 2015; Steuber, 1996). Bivalve shells have proven to be especially useful for reconstructing paleoseasonality and decadal climate variability (e.g., Schne et al., 2005; Steuber et al., 2005; Watanabe et al., 2004). Indeed, shells of many bivalve species record daily growth increments, especially during the first years of growth (e.g., Pannella, 1972; Schne, Fiebig, et al., 2005; Warter & Mller, 2017). Hippuritid rudist bivalves (Hippuritidae, Gray 1848) are of special interest for climate reconstructions in the Late Cretaceous, because of their abundance in the fossil record and because their comparatively thick, diagenetically resistant lowMg calcite (LMC) outer shell layers serve as reliable archives for shallow marine chemistry (AlAasm & Veizer, 1986a, 1986b; Steuber, 1996). Since the rudists became extinct at the CretaceousPaleogene boundary (Steuber et al., 2002), no close living relatives are available for comparison. ...

​

Stable oxygen isotope ratios (18O) are often used in bivalve studies because they record calcification temperature and the oxygen isotope composition of the seawater, the latter of which is strongly linked to salinity (Jones, 1983; Schne, Fiebig, et al., 2005). ...

​

Based on subdaily resolved Mg/Ca, Mg/Li, Sr/Ca, and Sr/Li records and the microscopic observations of laminae in the shell, and the assumption that these laminae represent (solar) days (see section 4), the number of days in the late Campanian year with associated uncertainty was estimated using three independent methods.

​

The first estimate of the number of days per year (cycle length) was made by dividing the length of the annual cycle, in micrometer shell length along the record extracted from the long trace element and stable isotope records (Figure 1a) using the identification of significant peaks from the MTM spectrum (Figure 1b), by the length of the daily cycle extracted similarly from the power spectra of highresolution records. ...

​

The second estimate the number of days per year (visual layer counting) was made from counting the number of daily laminae within one year of growth from the composite of microscopic images of the shell (reflected light microscopy in Figure 2 and transmitted thin section microscopy in Figure S13). ...

​

The third estimate the number of days per year (chemical layer counting) is unique to this study and uses fixed points (maxima, minima, and crossover points) of cycles extracted from the highresolution trace element records by bandpass filtering to obtain a record of daybyday cycle length along the complete nineyearlong record measured in T. sanchezi (Figure 1a and section 3). Not only does this estimate allow the number of days per year to be estimated with more confidence (N = 36 independent estimates: nine growth years times four trace element records), it also allows one to calculate the part of the record that preserves daily lamination (%preservation) for each record and each growth year separately. ...

​

The length of a Campanian day is calculated by dividing the length of a year in seconds (which remained constant over geological time; Williams, 2000) by the number of days per year. The EarthMoon distance can be calculated via the assumption that the total inertia and energy of the EarthMoon system remains constant over time (Lowrie, 2007). ...

​

Results

​

... At the same time, stable isotope analyses show that these wellpreserved parts of the shell are characterized by 18O values fluctuating periodically between ‘6 and ‘4.5 VPDB, which, although relatively low for bivalve calcite, is comparable with records of pristine calcite from this and other rudist species from the Late Cretaceous (Steuber, 1996, 1999; Steuber et al., 2005). Similarly, periodic fluctuations of 13C values between 0.5 and 2 VPDB are consistent with carbon isotope ratios in other wellpreserved fossil bivalve shells (e.g., Batenburg et al., 2011; Steuber, 1996, 1999).

​

The 13C and 18O records clearly covary, on the seasonal scale as well as on the scale of the aforementioned millimeterscale fluctuations (see Figure 1a). A cross plot in Figure 6a shows that this correlation is moderate in strength (R2 = 0.47) and highly statistically significant (p 0.05). ...

​

Correcting for incomplete preservation yields estimates of 376 3.6 and 367 22 days/year from cycle length and visual layer counting, respectively, statistically indistinguishable from the estimate based on the LAICPMS record determined by linescanning (chemical layer counting; see Figure 7 and section 2.8).

​

​

The number of laminae per year is in close agreement with previous estimates of the number of days in a Late Cretaceous year based on independent counts of diurnal increments in various fossil taxa (Pannella, 1972: 375 days/year; Berry and Barker: 370.3 days/year) and calculations of tidal dissipation and the resulting deceleration of Earth's orbit (Laskar et al., 2004: 374.49 days/year; ocean model in Meyers & Malinverno, 2018 from Webb, 1982: ~375 days/year; Figure 7; results and explanation of estimates found in the literature are given in Appendix 1). ...

---

The 13C and 18O records can be compared to ice cores where they overlap in time.They don't say how the geological age is determined.This is similar to the Talking Coral Heads, providing further consilience with the age dating methods.The Campanian (83.6 0.5 to 72.1 0.2 Ma) is an late part of the Cretaceous era

quote:

---

Campanian - Wikipedia

​

The Campanian is the fifth of six ages of the Late Cretaceous epoch on the geologic timescale of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). In chronostratigraphy, it is the fifth of six stages in the Upper Cretaceous series. Campanian spans the time from 83.6 ( 0.7) to 72.1 ( 0.6) million years ago. It is preceded by the Santonian and it is followed by the Maastrichtian.[2]

​

The Campanian was an age when a worldwide sea level rise covered many coastal areas. The morphology of some of these areas has been preserved: it is an unconformity beneath a cover of marine sedimentary rocks.[3][4]

---

So this also has implications for climate change issues -- CO2 levels and ocean depths.Enjoy