Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

quote:

---

No change in nature happened.

---

I tend to agree. The nature that changed would not have been this present nature. So no big changes in the present nature happened.

quote:

---

Try to get passed YOU.

---

Try to get passed YOU.

quote:

---

This is about what others are seeing and thinking. They would not be thinking all this if they did not see what they think is good evidence.

---

Says you. I suggest many people cling to preferred beliefs. I have shown that what many here have called evidence was nothing more than a splattering of voluminous beliefs onto evidences. If they still think that is good, then they better be able to defend the beliefs.

quote:

---

why make the evidence that fools us?

---

It does not fool us all! I have pointed out that the reason many are fooled is because they paint evidences with godless baseless beliefs. It is not a matter of evidence at all, only about what beliefs we use looking at the evidence!Edited by dad, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well good, if you don't care how it looks to us, then we don't have to worry about sharing time on the telescope with you. And when I look through my telescope and see a red star and then photograph it, I will report my observation of the red star and that I photographed it. I will not report that I didn't see anything, I will not report that it was green or blue.

---

Then you might feel as if you really dis something clever?

quote:

---

If something is the same in all models you only need one model. Science is exciting when something different or unexpected is observed.

---

Excitment has to do with truth and reality. If science finds it was wrong on predictions that should not excite them. It should wake them up.

quote:

---

If a distant star looks red when I look through my telescope in my backyard then THAT is what I will report. If I hook a spectrometer up to my telescope and it gives me a reading of a wavelength in the red part of the spectrum, THAT is what I will report.

---

And if time is required to know distance and oyu merely believe it exists the same in deep space that is what I will report.

quote:

---

Really? Please point to the dishonest or nonobjective part of reporting my observations of a red star with my telescope and spectrometer in my backyard, on planet earth, last night at 10:46.

---

Nothing. However if you were to claim the star was red shifted because of reasons we see on earth, I would question that. If you claimed the star was 1000 times bigger than the sun and a million ly away, I would question that. If you claimed the star came to exist by stellar evolution 400,000,000 years ago, I would question that. If all you report is 'gee whiz, that little star appears red from my back yard', well you get a pass.

quote:

---

People can and do make up lots of crazy stuff, but luckily the "tooth fairy fart" cult is spending all their time in a spat with the "god's exploding turd" cult so we don't have to even bother telling them we have a telescope.

---

If you claimed that the stars seen in your telescope sailed out of a hot little soup in a fraction of a second, your fable would rank less than the other.

quote:

---

Now see, that's why you flunked out of every science class. That is what religion does, put all evidence and observations through a belief lens.

---

If you knew what truth and fact and real evidence and testing was all about, you would not be pretending you knew much at all here.

quote:

---

Sounds like sour grapes because we won't share our knowledge with you.

---

Origin claims of so called science are not knowledge, that are deep fantasy and fake news.

quote:

---

Well, like I said, I'm just happy I don't have to share any of my viewing time with you. I enjoy exchanging observations with other scientists, but you would not.

---

looking at little light is not a crime.

False bravado. You cannot defend your claims and religion.

quote:

---

Nope, just saying that I would report what I observe.

---

No problem, long as you don't report that the star evolved from nothing, and exists in space and time as we do here in this solar system in an identical way.

quote:

---

Now see, you just keep saying stupid shit, no wonder no one will let you near science.

---

Some people call what they don't understand syupid.

quote:

---

I didn't say anything about the distance, I am just reporting what I see, a red star. Are you calling me a liar?

---

It isn't about you. When we read, for example, about a cluster or galaxy, or black hole or whatever in far space, they usually tell us the distance and often the mass and sizes as well. Now if all you do is look out in your telescope and report to someone who cares, that a star is red, well, not sure there is a harm or foul there.

quote:

---

And I am happy to say that I am not pretending to know much at all here.

---

Great, so you are on the right track. I can affirm that is true.

quote:

---

Neither is trying to discover how the Universe works. We're not doing it for you, we are doing it for us.

---

Science preaches the beliefs to kids actually, as well as to everyone else it can. Using a small package of beliefs to interpret evidence is not trying to learn how anything works. Science methodically molests all evidence with it's little set of beliefs and paints, welds, and splatters, and dunks the evidences in them.

quote:

---

The point is that no one conducting science is ever saying the ridiculous gibberish you say that you don't want us to say.

---

Yes they are. +

quote:

---

You don't have even the most remote understanding of the observations that scientist report.

---

Yes I do, and I also know the basis for it. You should be so lucky.
Not only that I can debate issues. Not seeing much more than bad attitude and pious pretensions from you.

quote:

---

I know you religious types like to tell lies, especially to your kids, but my kids see right through your bullshit.

---

That's what you think.
Keep reporting red looking stars to your religious types, and keep telling yourself your kids believe it all.Edited by dad, : No reason given.Edited by dad, : No reason given.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The vertical axis is years before present as measured on the same sample by carbon-14 dating.

---

Show where carbon samples were taken from. Was the tree compared with something else that was dated, or were sample taken from the tree itself? What tree where? How many rings did the living tree have? Let's see what you got.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

OK, so looking at the graph, it seems one tree was living most of the time involved. I looks like it died something like several hundred years ago. Looking at the bit on the left representing the first thousand years of growth, this would be the important part.There are no real specs on when the samples of carbon were taken from the tree. So, if a tree grew in weeks in the former nature it would have had perhaps hundreds of rings.Using an example, we could say a tree started to grow three years after the flood year. The tree grew, for example, 103 years in the former nature. In that time, say it had 1000 rings. Then a change in nature. Then the tree continues to grow till it dies in say, 450 AD. In that time after the nature change, till it died in 450 AD it added about, say, 2900 rings, in the yearly cycle that has existed since then. So the tree would have (2900 + 1000) 3900 rings. Science would assume the tree had lived about almost 4000 years. In reality it was only about (2900 +103) 3000.The only place a carbon sample wold matter was in that first 103 years. We have no specs as to exactly where that sample of carbon on the tree was taken.Basically it is just a vague statement of faith based on belief in a same nature in the past so far.

I doubt it, if so link to the post.

So how old were these 25 trees? Dead, alive? Where in the tree(s) exactly was the carbon samples taken? (Every 200 years or etc)

quote:

---

Oh, and, if you thought for a nanosecond, you would realize that the carbon dating samples would make no sense unless they were taken from the rings. So we do have a specification of where the carbon dating samples were taken. They were taken from rings that had already been dated by counting and matching rings and the carbon dating results were compared with the ring counting results.

---

I have heard of other instances where carbon dating was based on similar ratios, so that the dates were derived that way. In this instance you claim that the carbon was taken from the 25 trees. You furthermore claim that (not mentioning if they were dead or alive trees) carbon samples were taken from areas of a tree 'already dated by counting rings'.You have no specs then. You can't focus on the area of interest in the tree rings. The reason you posted the picture was to support a claim that nature was the same in the past. One would think you had the capacity to detail rings found in the possible ring layer area where such a nature change supposedly occurred or not. So you need to show carbon sample from the time you think is say, 5000 years ago plus. (in the tree). What we do not want is some graph averaging it out or some such in a non specific way.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Great so what are the specifics about what carbon samples were teaken from exactly what tree and area of the tree?

quote:

---

I specified which trees were dead or alive. 25 alive, 17 dead.

---

Great, so now let's see the details of what tree that grew where and when etc. Let's see the details in a living tree pre 5000 rings deep? Or, if you are just assuming that the dead trees somewhere nearby all grew in this nature also, then pick a dead tree and show exactly where a carbon sample was taken from 5000 rings deep!? (remember, you claimed sample from dead and living trees here)Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Source where it shows that carbon samples were taken from each of the 25 trees at precisely 5000 rings deep? I am starting to sense dishonesty here.

quote:

---

There are no living trees over 5,000 years old that have countable rings. There are several growths in which the roots are way over 5,000 years old but the top growth is younger.

---

Well, the oldest living tree is said to be almost 5000 years old.However, the dates do not help the topic at hand. The early stages of growth (the only important time in regards to supporting your claim of a same nature in the past) are not there!"These ring counts were done on a trunk cross-section taken about 2.5 m (8 feet) above the original germination point of the tree, because the innermost rings were missing below that point. Adjusting Graybill's figure by adding the estimated number of years required to reach that height, plus a correction for the estimated number of missing rings (not uncommon in trees at the tree line),"Prometheus - Wikipedia(tree)They had to estimate a time that the tree would need to grow 8 feet high!Edited by dad, : No reason given.