Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You have all you need to know. For the 5,000th ring in the series, samples were taken from several trees, each from the ring 5,000th in the series, and then carbon dated with results almost exactly equal to 5,000 years ago. Pick any age and the answer will be the same. Why would you need more information?Or do you think the researchers were dishonest enough to lie, hundreds ofthousands of researchers all over the world reporting consilient results over the last two centuries? Without a one leaking?

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.I see you haven't absorbed any of what I've written about matching tree rings. Nobody aasumes that dead trees of the same species nearby grew "in the same nature" . We know that they grew "in the same nature" because the rings match, starting with the live trees and working backwards. And the many other dating methods that produce the same results. Read Message 1383 again until you understand it.

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.

SOP. 5,000 is just the number you've been using, I used it as an example. They took samples for carbon dating throughout the whole sequence. How else could they make a graph of ring counting age versus carbon dating age? Do you have any suggestions? Radiocarbon Dating Gets a Postmodern Makeover

quote:

---

Radiocarbon dating, as of now, dates samples to within a few decades using a calibration curve made up of groups of ten tree rings plotted as series of single points on a graph. The points represent an average amount of radiocarbon present in those rings. This doesn’t account for spikes in the dataindividual rings with unusually high or low amounts of carbon-14. These spikes in radiocarbon can come from a number of short term events, like solar flares, volcanic eruptions, and changes in oceanic circulation. By lumping ten years’ worth of radiocarbon data into a single data point, spikes in radiocarbon may inadvertently skew the curve making dates less accurate. [...]

​

With funding from the Malcolm Hewitt Wiener Foundation, Pearson is targeting a period in the Bronze Age from 2,400 to 1,400 BC, getting measurements of carbon-14 in single tree rings from a range of growth locations. What this reveals about yearly radiocarbon variation during this time period will then be applied to archaeological controversies and floating chronologies from the East Mediterranean and beyond

---

True and irrelevant.T hat's how they estimated the age of that particular tree. That's one reason why that tree is not used for dendrochronology. Dendochronology does not involve estimates. This shows a simplified view of how multiple trees are assembled into a sequence by finding overlaps between trees: When dendrochronologists assemble a sequence, they do not estimate anything. They try to get as many trees as possible that overlap at each point in time. I've done some research on this green line: The minimum overlap is 15 trees. Every point on that green line represents 15 to 120 overlapping trees. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They took samples for carbon dating throughout the whole sequence. How else could they make a graph of ring counting age versus carbon dating age?

---

Where in the sequences? You are not being clear. Just admit you don't know. How many samples from what part of each tree sequence was taken for carbon tests?

quote:

---

Radiocarbon dating, as of now, dates samples to within a few decades using a calibration curve made up of groups of ten tree rings plotted as series of single points on a graph. The points represent an average amount of radiocarbon present in those rings

---

Ten rings from what tree where and when? Is this in that particular study you posted a graph for? Are you claiming here that they took thousands of carbon samples every ten rings deep for all the trees!?

quote:

---

When dendrochronologists assemble a sequence, they do not estimate anything. They try to get as many trees as possible that overlap at each point in time. I've done some research on this green line:

---

No cabin has rings from Noah's time I would guess. You seem to be arguing a generality here and not specific to the time in question say about 4500 or 5000 years ago.
If you claim samples from this time exist, that were specifically carbon dated in this sequence area then show the sample. Let's zoom in on the facts. Otherwise none of this supports your claim of a same nature in the past.No one is debating whether a yearly cycle exists and whether we can date things. The issue is that it only woks in this nature where trees grow at the rates they now do.

There is no other nature. Not that anyone can show. Without evidence of this other nature having existed in the past then there is no reason to hypothesize that it did.This other nature is *your* contention.Do you have such evidence? If not then trees grew then at the same rate as now and you cannot show otherwise.The burden of proof is on you.

quote:

---

There is no other nature

---

Of course not. However the question is WAS there in the past, and do we know?

quote:

---

Without evidence of this other nature having existed in the past then there is no reason to hypothesize that it did.

---

Without evidence of your same nature having existed in the past then there is no reason to hypothesize that it did.
Do you have evidence? If so post it. If not then we do not know the tree growth rate in the past.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Creationist illogic. You can not be trusted with evidence. You can not do science.Unless you can show otherwise there exists no reason, no facts in evidence, to suppose the past operations of physics, nature, differed in any way from today.
There is no reason to question the consistency of the natural processes through time. There must be reasons to entertain such changes and you provide none.Thus, outside you delusions such differences did not exist. The passage of time, the decay of radioactive elements, the growth of trees, is all the same today as they were 10,000, 10 million, 4.5 billion and 13.75 billion years ago.How do you explain this difference in nature? How/when did this change happen? Without answering these questions you cannot use this fantasy to explain your religious dogma.You still have nothing.

Anyone got access?(I loved the days when I could look at any paper on anything, anywhere, anytime - I really miss it.) Were Fundamental Constants Different in the Past?Atomic physics, nuclear physics, and cosmology enable physicists to probe changes in the fine-structure constant over time scales ranging from a few years to nearly the age of the universe.Keith Olive is the director of the William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute and a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Yong-Zhong Qian is an associate professor and a McKnight Presidential Fellow; both are in the school of physics and astronomy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Were Fundamental Constants Different in the Past?: Physics Today: Vol 57, No 10The general point is that scientists would be extremely interested to know that physics was different only a few thousand years ago. But if it was, it would be very obvious and we would see the evidence everywhere.One pretty catastrophic piece of evidence is that for the radiodating regimes to be wron radioactive decay rates had to speed up. As decay rates increase so does heat. It's estimated that to change decay rates to make it look like the earth was 6,000 years old, the temperature of the earth would then be 65,000C/km. Rock would be liquid.ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat ProblemWe do not see any evidence that anything was different and we have evidence that it was the same. So that's game over - if it ever started.So we must wait for the crackpots to produce the evidence that it was different. I'm not holding my breath. This current dad loony isn't going to produce anything, why are we still feeding him?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You sure have a lot of irrelevant and repeated questions. Throughout. As I said. I'm being perfectly clear. I don't know how many samples,and their locations, and that information doesn't matter to the result. They were professionals who knew how to do the job and did it professionally. A sufficient number to unambiguously define the green curve. Throughout the sequence, after they had cross-dated the samples by their rings. All studies. SOP means Standard Operating Procedure. Very unlikely; each test costs money, around $140-450 depending on how much of their work is involved preparing the sample.

Guess all you want. The sequence that formed the green line covers the last 10,429 years. First you chide me for using 5,000 years ago, and now you chide me for not specifically using 5,000 years ago. Make up your mind and stick to it.The sequence covers the last 10,429 years. Are you capable of understanding that 4,500 years ago and 5,000 years ago are both included in that time frame? And, in your fantasy, carbon 14 decayed at the same rate as trees grew rings. And ice layers in Greenland and the Antarctic were laid down at the same rate that tree rings grew. And corals grew at the same rate as tree rtings grew. And varves (annual layers) in lakes and seas throughout the world were laid down at the same rate as tree rings grew. And the decay rates of uranium and thorium were sped up to match the rate at which the tree rings gre.All those phenomena and more agree about the last 40,00 years or so.Yeah, right.Changing the fundamental makeup of the Universe to that extent would render life as we know it impossible.