Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

or not.

Or if tree rings in the past grew fast, as well as rapid magnetic reversals and changes, they would not tie anything in the way your beliefs infer.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Exactly. Any assertions trees did not grow fast as the record in Scripture indicates will be ignored unless proven.

I will if you do.

I agree that saying nature in the past was the same is like saying there were unicorns here.
The positive science claim is that nature was the same and so that therefore tree rings represent the same length of time taken for trees to grow now.
I will use the historical default position that the record in the bible is true until and unless you can support your positive claims.

Great.

What is a rudist? They wear clothes, I hope?

Since science cooked up a new origins story, the creation story may not be the default in some circles. However, science claims must be supported in ways other than beliefs.The main story of Noah and the flood has not changed.

quote:

---

Missing or extra rings are prevalent in some species, occasional in most species, and very rare in some species. Examples of the latter are bristlecone pines, Douglas fir, and oak. Dendrochronologists use only samples from such trees.

---

Strawman argument. I do not need any missing rings. The issue is how fast trees grew in the past, not how many rings there are. If a tree grew for example in a few weeks and had 500 rings, we could not count the ring patterns for yearly cycles. Now if you have a positive claim that nature was the same, so that, therefore, trees had to grow at the same rates as today, fine. Present the proof.Otherwise, the patterns of rings and carbon isotopes cannot be interpreted as you would wish.
They actually had to use to tree rings to calibrate and correct the carbon dating because it was WRONG!

quote:

---

Cute. You skipped right over extra rings. You do need huge heaps of them. For which you haven't provided any evidence or physically possible mechanism.

---

Try to focus, I do not care how many rings there are. There is nothing added or missing. If a tree grew fast it still had rings, they just did not represent the same growing cycle time.

quote:

---

But like all YECs, you are ducking the important question, about which I was so specific.

​

You neglected to explain why all those independent methods agree. Snowfall layers, radioactive decay rates of uranium, thorium, and carbon-14 by different mechanisms, tree rings, ice layers, speleothem growth, and varves; all involving different and independent processes, and all would have to be sped up in perfect lock step.

---

False. I duck nothing. If you use a blue crayon to color all evidences, all evidence will look blue. You use your same nature in the past belief to color all evidence so it looks old to you. Since you use the same belief to color evidences in many areas, they all get colored with your belief. That is the only consilience!

quote:

---

Unless you have evidence for that actually happening, we'll ignore such unfounded speculation.

---

Unless you have evidence for a same nature in the past we will ignore slow growth claimss.

quote:

---

No measurement of any quantity is 100% exact. The curve I posted demonstrates that without any adjustment carbon dating is correct within 10% or less, many many orders of magnitude too small to help you.

---

Drawing a line or curve has no more meaning than the basis for the drawing. Your belief in a same nature in the past is the only basis, and you project it onto rings and carbon.

quote:

---

As I pointed out, scientists use several different and independent measurements, all of which agree closely enough to falsify your age claims, to increase the accuracy of carbon dating.

---

They use ONE belief. They use this on different things. Any agreement is religious pi in the sky that has no reality to it. It is easy to misinterpret ratios, for example in two sets of isotopes and claim some agreement in imaginary time a billion years ago that never existed! Seriously??

That was in reply to this post"There is no evidence of a change in nature,..."In other words there is no evidence nature was the same. --or not.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Perhaps you and Jonf could do that since it was him who mentioned Noah and how there were many stories that were different about the flood.

quote:

---

I have provided that evidence and explained it in detail

---

False. You provided a projected belief that you cannot discuss or defend that was used on tree rings and carbon decay, and then put on a graph. That is not evidence of anything except that you have a belief. Sorry if you though that was science in any real sense of the word.

Yes I read lots in the thread. Beliefs beliefs beliefs presented as something else.
Then the mods step in predictably and cut off opposing belief based ideas.

I explained why using a preset belief (a same nature in the far past on earth) inevitably would yield similar wrong results across the board. Deal with it.Edited by dad, : No reason given.