Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You admit is used the king lists! Then you make some vague claim about only when validated! Ha. Show us an instance where dates were validated?
So if you want to use the dog star, you need to fight tooth and nail to prove it was what you say and that it was indeed that way also in the post flood days.It seems..cough cough...that you seek to sneak in dates from king lists or what star you believe was the dog star..etc...and then get some correlation in the C14. Nice try.By the way, where are the close up pics and details about rings of a tree pre 4500 along with the C14 from then you seem to have forgotten to post?We wait.Edited by creation, : No reason given.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also?The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times.But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc.So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts?You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..?

Your correlation claims are wrong. A bunch of empty blab. Try addressing the core issues here.If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.

I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework.OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date?Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links.

Looking at your pic/graph, I see it lists Hezikiah's tree ring tunnel. Too bad that was very post flood eh? Then the line continues...no details. Ha.Then you cite correlations going back to 700BC? Try dealing with 3000BC. Get on topic here.Your other pic is funny. You cite other possible matches...wiggle room...so I am sorry, but..GONG!As for artifacts matching C154 patterns, again, sorry, but whatever nature existed right after the flood would have left patterns. We can see you go fuzzy near that point and resort to wiggling and red lines.As I said, you have no other way but decay 'dating'.Then you cite the article and the 4700 years covered supposedly. That happens to be about the time of the flood. Add in the error of 1.9% they cite and we have some 85 years more to play with. Then we add in that the nature hange likely was about 106 years after the flood in the days of Peleg...and we have another 106 years to play with. Being so close to the nature change we must allow a possibility their fine artifacts were manufactured pre nature change! Your so called correlations crumble to dust. Once again we see you have absolutely nothing BUT one belief underpinning ALL your so called correlations.

I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?

Sorry about your cancerous attitude problem. I did give links to show the prophetic/Gen/Revelation years as being 360 days.If you are google challenged I guess I could get them again for you. I do spoon feed religionists when I have time, but usually when they have a reasonable attitude.

Your graph descended into red lines near the crucial zone of 4500 years. I pointed out that the change was close to that time, most likely, so that any C14 would lose it's current meaning. Yes, atoms still did stuff and were in some process in that former nature one assumes. Yes, the daughter material and parent materials (except for what came to exist in this current nature) already existed also, and involved in whatever things they used to be involved with. You look at this nature, and how they are now involved in a decay process, and assume all material we see relates to and was a result of this!Having some carbon around the time of a nature change does not mean that that carbon was involved in a decay situation as it now would be.The evidence seems to show decreasing accuracy on your graph as we approach the change time.Your evidence is not valid to show a same nature in any way for that time.

The bible supports a different nature, in many ways. Science doesn't know either way. Guess what has the support then?

You provided zero information on the rings pre 4500 level. You cited claims about them. You previously claimed there would not even be all the rings, because of 'missing rings'.So when they cite an age, how many actual rings are there?Remember, that if a tree grew in a few weeks complete with rings, that those rings at the time would represent far different times than what rings today do.The whole issue seems to be over a few hundred rings which we can't get a clear answer from you if they even exist or are missing!

Scripture tells us what the world was like a little bit, in the days of Noah, and before. Noah sent out a bird looking for trees after the flood. A week later...no trees. Again, another bird was sent...voila..fresh leaf from a tree. That is fast growing!In the garden of Eden, God planted stuff. The same week man ate fruit from trees. That is fast.That may be news to EVC, but not to mankind.

I have it all. Science not knowing, and Scripture. History also.

Curiously, when you cite missing rings, we ask for details as to how many hundreds of ring exactly were missing? I see later in this post you clear that up. Now the issue is for you to focus in on the 2 or 300 rings that do exceed the 4500 level.What about THEM? Do they look the same? Got a pic? What pattern exactly of C14 in those rings do you see?Fortunately for my views. it doesn't matter anyhow since trees grew fast!But I thought you would at least try to go down fighting.It is simple to comprehend that if trees grew fast a ring was NOT a year. So any similar patterns in dead tress in the vicinity of trees living, from the time of a nature change....would not represent years either.Your so called correlations are truly religious fantasies.Your idea that a former nature that was different would require the same time to produce a similar looking ring is ridiculous. To claim that because our nature would not allow for it is to do nothing more than to pretend our nature existed then. Prove it first, or you may not use it.Ha

razd

quote:

---

Except that I added those red lines to show all the possible correlations to the C14 levels in the artifacts, and this shows the range of dates applicable to the correlation, as noted in the post:

​

quote:
Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:

---

Possible correlations with the furniture of the day? Ha.

quote:

---

No, you blandly asserted a personal belief that it was, one that you have provide no evidence for or any other support. You cannot claim there was a change without evidence -- that's making up fantasy, not factual argument.

---

You baldly assert it was the same and offer no evidence. Your graphs assume a same nature. I do not baldly assert anything, I try to look at what the actual records of the time were from basically the only record man has of the time. It happens to be at odds with your bald faced assertions.

quote:

---

... Yes, the daughter material and parent materials ...
C14 does not occur as a result of decay of a parent material, and the daughter material is not used, rather the level of C14 is compared to the level of total Carbon (isotopes -12, -13, and -14). From Message 4 of this thread:

---

You better correct wiki I guess."Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues to date archaeological, geological and hydrogeological samples. "
WikipediaSo it is used for dating because it is now radioactive. You see, you apparently assume it also was then? Why? The relationship of parents and daughters..what decays into what...would probably be a feature of our present nature.

quote:

---

quote:
Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)

---

Can you show that C14 was unstable in the past?

quote:

---

quote:
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay:

​

Glossary Term - Beta Decay (7)

---

In the current nature, this is how it works. Irrelevant to the former nature unless you claim it was the same and can prove it!

quote:

---

The C14 reverts to the N14 when it decays, and the levels of N14 are not used in C14 dating methodology (which would be silly due to the amount ov N14 in the atmosphere). So thanks for displaying your ignorance on the process you are then claiming to modify through a "former nature" fantasy.

---

Whatever reverts to something now in this nature does so...in this nature! What happens in this state..stays in this state.

quote:

---

There is no sudden - or even gradual - change in the slope of the curve for the actual measured levels of C14 when graphed against the dendrochronological ages from counting annual rings. Not at 4,500 years, not at any point on the graph.

---

I think we got that many posts ago. Not sure what you are missing here. The level of C14 does not mean a thing unless we have the current nature in place. Nothing wrong with C14. What is wrong is that you try to ask us to believe that it existed in the atomic relationship/decay process/ that is is now in! Why? Says who?Once again your so called correlations are shown to all stem from ONE belief.

quote:

---

Blah, blah, blah ... your jibber-jabber is meaningless without documented evidence of a change in nature. There was no change in the evidence from tree rings, so logically there was no change in the "nature" of the world.

---

The evidence of a nature change is not in the tree and it's levels of C14. You have provided no evidence nature was the same! Until you do your jibber jabber must and will remain religion.

quote:

---

Just like there is no evidence of a world wide flood at these times -- an event that would have disrupted the samples of wood used in the dendrochronologies because wood floats and long term floods kill trees.

---

Says you. In other words science cannot read evidences very well.If there were evidences, say the KT layer and iridium, science would simply miss it and imagine it was something else. All the interpretations of science are narrow minded belief based exercises in trying to make evidences fit into their religion.

quote:

---

Sorry, what it shows is a lack of "different nature" at any time along the above curve that is based on tree ring counts.

---

If we believed in a same state past nature we might look at the rings as if the C14 meant that certain ages existed. I am open minded and honest, so I simply ask that if you claim such a same nature in the past, and wish to use that belief for age claims...that you first prove it! Otherwise you are using belief only and engaged in circular belief.Trying to insert radioactive decay based dates into other things such as varves or etc...is of course also circular beliefs.

Are there any reasons to believe that the radioactive decay we experience here in the solar system area reflects what goes on far away?Light here exists a certain way, obeying OUR laws.