|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And we have a plethora of evidence there have been no changes of the magnitude daddy needs to validate his hallucinations. He's already ignored the evidence I posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There's quite a bit of evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay rates, which blows young Earth out of the water. Radioactive decay depends on the most fundamental properties of the Universe. If they changed in the past there would be a wide range of detectable side effects. THose side effects aren't there.
Physicist Stever Calip wrote a post on talk.origins some time ago listing some of these side effects. Fron The Constancy of Constants, Part 2*:
quote:_________________________ * Either my Internet is whacked out or talkorigins.org and the wayback machine are both down, so that points to Google's cached copy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
SN1987A
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Radioactive decay rates are based on some of the most fundamental properties of the Universe. If those fundamental properties changed enough to change radioactive decay rates the repercussions would echo down the ages and we'd see them today. We've looked. They aren't there. Radioactive decay rates haven't changed noticeably in the last 13 billion years or so.
Not that you're capable of comprehending that science is one big interconnected ball. You can't change anything that you want to without breaking the entire thing. Since we know science works in the present, and it wouldn't if our conclusions about the past were significantly wrong, we know lots of things about the past that you want to deny. So this entire post is wasted on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Says who?
Those who know physics.
The ONLY radioactive decay and times we see are HERE
Nope. Not by a long shot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The carbon dating samples were taken from the trees themselves. They were not compared with anything else other than their own ring count. I don't know offhand how many trees were involved, but I do know that in such studies they don't publish unless they have multiple samples overlapping rings at each point in time.
For example, here's a graphic from Ferguson's classic paper on a 7,104 year bristlecone pine tree-ring chronology (click to enlarge) :
The present is way over on the right. In the top part each bar represents a tree. The length of the bar shows the lifetime of the tree. The left end is when the tree sprouted and the right end is when it died. The position of each bar is determined by matching rings between samples as explained at the links I posted. The different stuff at the right side of the graph represents samples of about 25 living trees. The middle of the figure shows the number of samples that overlapped at each point in time. The bottom part is irrelevant to this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
As I specifically said the present is at the right edge of the graph and the different shading at the right end of the graph represents about 25 trees that were sampled while alive. You didn't bother to read my message.
The conclusions of the study are based on the CONCLUSION that nature has not changed, which is based on mountains of evidence from different disciplines. I posted some of those observations. Write 1,000 times on the blackboard "changes in Nature in the past would have repercussions we would see today."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
They were almost exactly equal. This is the most fundamental problem for YECs, that no YEC ever tries to address. Everything fits together. The carbon dates match the tree ring counts, so before the alleged change the decay rate of carbon-14 would have to be faster and in perfect step with the faster tree growth. Oh, but the coral growth rings match the tree ring dates match the carbon dates. And then the ice core layers match the coral growth rings match the tree rings match the carbon dates. And on and on. You are talking about gigantic changes in how the Universe works. Life as we know it couldn't exist before your alleged change. To use an analogy, you want to take two pieces out of a jigsaw puzzle, replace them with a baseball and a dead mackerel, then fit the whole puzzle back together including the baseball and the fish. Think you could do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Watch those goalposts fly! The graph you are mentioning isn't the one for that. This one is
. The graph is not an average. The graph is completely specific.
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
Yes, one would think. The graph clearly shows that no such change occurred. The graph shows that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You are extremely muddled.
In this instance you claim that the carbon was taken from the 25 trees.
The 25 living and the 17 dead ones.
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'
I specified which trees were dead or alive. 25 alive, 17 dead. But remember that this is an illustration of how tree ring counting works. It is not the study from which the green line graph came. I specifically noted I do not have the data from that study. I could probably dig it up. Will you pay any required fees? Usually $30-$50. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Great so what are the specifics about what carbon samples were teaken from exactly what tree and area of the tree?
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Source where it shows that carbon samples were taken from each of the 25 trees at precisely 5000 rings deep?
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
They had to estimate a time that the tree would need to grow 8 feet high!
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You sure have a lot of irrelevant and repeated questions.
Where in the sequences?
Throughout. As I said.
You are not being clear. Just admit you don't know.
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.
How many samples from what part of each tree sequence was taken for carbon tests?
A sufficient number to unambiguously define the green curve.
Ten rings from what tree where and when?
Throughout the sequence, after they had cross-dated the samples by their rings.
Is this in that particular study you posted a graph for?
All studies. SOP means Standard Operating Procedure.
Are you claiming here that they took thousands of carbon samples every ten rings deep for all the trees!?
Very unlikely; each test costs money, around $140-450 depending on how much of their work is involved preparing the sample.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024