Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Hi ScottyDouglas,I missed your post while making mine (Message 88), but this is a good place to start. Again, it helps if you use the quote boxes to clearly identify your points from the points you are replying to:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

Revising your comment to include boxes it looks like this: Curiously, trees buried by water for over a year die. There is also the common condition of fallen wood drifting away on water, rather than remaining where they fell. Or are you invoking magic to keep them alive and all in the same place?remember that we are talking three different chronologies in three different places.If you are going to be skeptical of this, then the onus is on you to show how such objective evidence would survive and continue to grow unaffected (no aberrant tree ring, for instance) by a world flood. Of course it is -- every date provided by creationists is very suspect, and I have seen ages from 4k to 10k in different sources. Bishop Usher, though, is usually cited as an expert on these calculations (which are suspect because real dates are not identified anywhere I am aware of).But there comes a point where you run out of time for a Young Earth concept, and this is the starting point: we know from the objective empirical evidence of the tree rings and the correlation between independent tree chronologies. Curiously, I am not suggesting any reason for the data to run back to those dates, just that the evidence takes me there. Actually the practical limit for 14C dating is ~50,000 years, but we will come to that later. We can come back to this when we get to 14C dating. For now I want you to concentrate on the tree ring chronologies in Message 88 I referred you to Message 2: Bristlecone Pines and Message 3: European Oaks to point out that there is a correlation between these three chronologies for climate and particular incidents and thus you need to explain why they result in the same dates to within 0.5% correlation.When we add Adding German Pines to the Mix we see that there is a fourth tree ring chronology:

quote:

---

Tree rings (and other systems of independent measurements of actual age of items) are used to calibrate the Carbon 14 dating method to make it more accurate than it is uncalibrated. The scientists doing this are very concerned with the accuracy of the data.

​

NOTE: we are NOT discussing carbon 14 dating yet, just the evidence from tree-ring chronologies and the accuracy of the data. Some of this has already been discussed above, in regards to the two oak chronologies. Here we are concerned with the last of the tree-ring chronologies that we can fix to an absolute time frame.

​

... Note further that the absolute European (German & Irish) Oak chronologies were discussed above, and that the accuracy of those with the Bristlecone Pine chronology was found to have an error of ~0.5% and that the Bristlecone Pine was excluded to bring the error down - there was less error between the German Oak, the Irish Oak and the German Pine chronologies. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology.

​

Note that the "Younger Dryas" - a period of significant climate change bigger than the "Little Ice Age" (and named for the pollen from the Dryas octopetala plant showing up in various sediments)(1) - now shows up in the tree-ring chronology, marked by the width of the rings.

​

What they are essentially doing with all these dendrochronologies is building an overall dendrochronology independant of genus or species. The method for matching elements of some species dendrochronologies is the same as it is for matching sample elements within species dendrochronologies: they match up the patterns of climate with annual rings. So we have the German Oak running to10,429 BP and the German Pine running from 9891 BP to 12,410 BP and it overlaps the German Oak for 538 years. We can again be {minimalist\parsimonious\generous} and say that the error in this date is 0.5% (to include the Bristlecone Pine) and the minimum age then is 12,410 BP - 0.5% + (2007-1950) = 12,405 years.

---

There is a closer correlation between the oak and the German pine chronologies than between the oak and the Bristlecone Pine, ie an error of less that 0.5%.What this shows is that the method of making dendrochronologies is validated and that the method, when properly used, is highly accurate.Thus we can have high confidence in a minimum age of the earth, and a period of time without a world wide flood that would disrupt the chronologies, of 12,410 years (5 years have passed since the thread was written).When do you start to become uncomfortable in extending the known age of the earth as shown by the evidence?Do you accept that the dendrochronologies are highly accurate AND that they show the earth is at least 12,410 years old?If not, then what is your explanation for the correlations?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : corrected number of chronologies involved

Hi Dwise1 Indeed, and this is clearly shown in the calibration curves, but there is another cycle that is of even more interest in terms of correlations:

quote:

---

Solar cycle - Wikipedia

​

The solar cycle (or solar magnetic activity cycle) has a period of about 11 years. The cycle is observed by counting the frequency and placement of sunspots visible on the Sun. Solar variation causes changes in space weather and to some degree weather and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

---

This results in a similar cycle pattern in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and is one of the reasons that C14 does not reach an equilibrium point in the atmosphere (another creationist pratt down the tubes ... ).You can see this pattern in the calibration curves, causing the fine saw-tooth pattern: There are other known period cycles that also have a similar effect, but the point of interest for the correlations, is that this is like a ticking clock with a fixed period of each tick, and they continue throughout the whole curve.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua No calibration required -- the difference between winter and summer cause the annual rings, and the different atmospheric conditions show up as different width rings. This is how the rings are correlated with climate as well as age. In other words you have not read the posts or respond to them, rather you bring in a different opinion.The issue is not whether you can challenge each type of evidence, but whether you can explain the correlations between them.If you can't explain the correlations then all your other issues are irrelevant. Where do you think that evidence comes from ... making stuff up, or by looking at actual data of oxygen levels compared to age in deposits such as the ice cores?Again the layers counted in the ice cores are based on winter vs summer deposits. The levels of oxygen in the layers provides evidence of correlations with other dating mechanisms.Your challenge is to explain the correlations.Enjoy.

Hi again Jzyehoshua Please don't go off topic with more extraneous distractions.You need to show how this affects the correlations, otherwise all you are doing is throwing sand against the wall to see what sticks.Enjoy.

Hi again Jzyehoshua And curiously this has nothing to do with the correlations in the dating in this thread.Perhaps you should try Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, as it seems you are unable to deal with the evidence for correlations here.Enjoy

Hi again Jzyehoshua See the thread Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?.Now see if you can get back to the issue of correlations.Enjoy.

Hi once again Jzyehoshua Curiously, still nothing to do with the correlations issue on this thread.Can I assume that you cannot refute the correlations?Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua Curiously, we are not discussing rainfall and their estimation from the width of tree rings, but the minimum age of the earth as determined by the count of the annual rings.You will note that they do not say that the number of rings is assumed, just that the climate based on the width of the rings. That similar effects will have similar causes ... unless you can show some mechanism to change them ... is a valid assumption unless you can show otherwise: the onus is on you to provide a mechanism to change them. Amusingly I do not need to prove anything: what I have provided you with is a set of data that shows a correlation within 0.5% between four different dendrochronologies from 4 different localities in the world, 4 different ecologies, and 3 different species, and this correlation is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the method.Your job is to show not only how this can be wrong, but wrong in such a way that results in this correlation. And your job is to show where when and how they would transition from annual rings to some other pattern without it being noticeable in the tree ring patterns. Again, I have given you the data that shows a correlation within 0.5% between four different dendrochronologies from 4 different localities in the world, 4 different ecologies, and 3 different species, and this correlation is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the method. Sadly, for you, this is completely irrelevant to the age issue. You're just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks rather than really addressing the issue of the correlations. Your undereducation in any particular field of science is not my problem. Certainly I will take the evidenced conclusions from an expert in the field over the opinion of someone who is more concerned with faith than facts. Let me know which links are broken and I will see about fixing them.Yes, the original post was written in March 2004, and not one creationist has been able to show how the age can be wrong and the correlations still occur. Not one. In over 1,000 posts to date, not one correlation has been explained. Not one. A silly claim, seeing as both were originally claimed to walk upright. Are you sure you are reading the scientific articles or the creationist ones?And fascinatingly we are not talking about evolution, but the sciences related to determining the age of the earth. If you are surprised that interpretations change in science when new information is provided, then you do not understand science.If you want to talk about hoaxes then try Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . Actually, I could care less how you decide if the methodology is solid, what I need from you is a mechanism that can explain the correlations if it is not due to age. Again I point out to you that the results of four entirely different dendrochronologies agree within 0.5% on age and on climate effects. Explain how that happens if what you suggest occurs with any significant frequency (if at all). Ah yes the old creationist when-in-doubt-claim-conspiracy-to-falsify-data card. Start a thread on that and see if you can substantiate that assertion.Meanwhile your task on this thread is to explain the correlations. Something no other creationist has been able to begin to explain.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua Rare and minute, curiously, does not mean a million-fold increase in decay rates. The argument that decay rates can be altered significantly will prove indefensible, and you are still left with the issue of correlations ... which you have not yet addressed.When we look at the dendrochronologies and also compare the values of the 14C/12C ratios for the rings at different ages we see that all four dendrochronologies have the same 14C/12C ratios for the same ages and that these values show the characteristic exponential curve of radioactive decay.You now have four dendrochronologies that agree with each other within 0.5% over 8,000 plus years AND you have them agree with each other on the 14C/12C ratios for all these ages AND you have the 14C/12C ratios correlate with the decay rate associated with 14C.You have not yet proposed a single mechanism to cause one of these correlations.Waving your hand and talking about hypothetical decay rate changes does not explain the correlations.Enjoy.

Hi again Jzyehoshua, It assumes that the earths tilt and orbit produce seasons, just as they do today. Of course if you have a mechanism to alter the tilt and orbit without it showing up in the tree ring chronologies, then please provide your hypothesis and the evidence for it ... otherwise you are just throwing mud, not debating the scientific validity of the correlations. Curiously being more tropical does not mean that the tilt and orbit were different and that there were not annual season patterns.Amusingly the dendrochronologies provide evidence of this difference in climate because the individual rings do not always grow at the same rate, but one dependent on the climate.Fascinatingly this does not affect the annual growth pattern due to seasons -- even when there is climate change. You have not shown it to be a fallacy, dangerous or otherwise. Just assertion is insufficient -- you need evidence that it is false.Dangerous to you maybe. Not dangerous to science however, as science is based on evidence, and you have provided no evidence that the annual season pattern has changed.You have not explained the correlations between four independent dendrochronologies in different global locations, in different ecologies and in different species of trees ... a correlation within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.Enjoy.

Hi once again Jzyehoshua, The topic issue is the correlations on dates derived by different means, with an emphasis on methods that involve annual counting systems. Yes. Perhaps you should read the different posts to see. The scientists involved have done the work independently of one another, what I have done here is assemble them in one place to show the correlations.Scientists are not at all worried about finding "any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth" as that has been done for some time to the satisfaction of science: the age of the earth is over 4.55 billion years according to the latest available information.It is just creationists that seem to have a problem recognizing this fact. This is a small minority of people in the world. Gosh, science refining the conclusions on the age of the earth based on new information ... what a shocking development ... or not. We still end up with a result of a minimum age of the earth of 4.55 billion years. Feel free to contact Brent Dalrymple to see if he agrees. Fantasy on top of fantasy. Making up stories that demonstrate to you that "all 3 would be thrown off" curiously does not explain the correlations.Four dendrochonologies from different global locations, different ecologies and different species correlate within 0.5%.The dendrochronologies also correlate for the 14C/12C ratios at the same ages.The dendrochronologies also correlate with the Lake Suigetsu varves and with the 14C/12C ratios of organic items deposited in the varves for the same ages as the tree rings..The 14C/12C ratios follow the standard exponential decay curve for at least 35,000 years. Message 5.The climate effects on the 14C/12C ratios also correlate with the climates shown in the tree rings.Why do these all correlate to the same ages? Events in the distant past, well beyond the ages of the tree rings, Lake Suigetsu varves, and ice cores, with the most recent occurring ~65 million years ago.This is irrelevant to this topic because they occurred before the ages being discussed ... unless you accept their age? Again, older than the times discussed in this topic. We also know that the ecology was different then, but that is still irrelevant to the issue of correlations of the dating methodologies discussed in this thread. Again, made up fantasy does not refute evidence, and you have not explained how the mechanisms involved create the correlations seen in the data. Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes used, when no variation with depth is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Agreed -- it should wipe out the patterns observed not create them. This is evidence that the flood did NOT occur. Floods do not lay down multiple layers of fine silt mixed with clay alternating with layers of diatom shells. You can test this: get some diatomaceous earth from a gardening store, mix it with fine clay from a pottery store, and then mix it with a lot of water so that the diatoms and clay are suspended and distributed throughout, and then try various ways to shake and rattle the container to alter the deposition of the diatoms and clay particles. Have fun. Why? How much? Be specific how great layers of water change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, when no variation with depth is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Why? How much? Be specific how volcanic activity change the decay rates of radioactive isotopes involved, when no significant variation is observed today.How does this cause the correlations seen?Show experimental results. Another creationist fantasy unsupported by evidence. If this hypothesis had any validity we should see tons of fossils forming at the bottom of the oceans -- all they need to do is sink and bingo: fossils. Curiously this does not occur. Sadly it also is not relevant to the issue of correlations of the age measuring methods. And sadly, for you, you have failed entirely to show how the correlations occur, why they get the same ages, not just a jumble of different old ages. All you have done is thrown a lot of mud, and unfortunately (for you), none of it is sticking: the correlations still show that the earth is old.In summary, creationist fantasy, claiming miracles due to a flood they cannot show occurred, is not an explanation for the correlations observed in the data.And we've only begun to discuss the methods used to measure ages well beyond any young earth fantasy.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, Which, as I explain in Message 137 does not address the correlations, it's just made up fantasy. And seeing as the four dendrochronologies correlate within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years it should be obvious that your objections are just your simplistic imagination and not apply to the actual science and work involved. As noted in Message 2:

quote:

---

Note three things: the tree rings contain climate data, the chronology is not based on one sample but many overlapping and duplicate (from the same tree) samples, and there are other samples that have not been counted yet or that have a break in the climate data that means they are "floating" in the chronology somewhere beyond the end of the continuous record. Adding up all the time recorded by these tree rings would give us a minimum age of the earth for all those years to have passed that generated the rings. We'll be minimalist here and say:

​

Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.

---

If you disagree you can contact Henri D. Grissino-Mayer at the University of Tennessee Department of Geography. I found him quite approachable. I'm sure that he would be impressed by your grasp of his profession.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, you seem to be missing the point here Sadly, for you, Message 124 does not show HOW the correlations occur, it is just an ad hoc pile of fantasy concepts, with no evidence, and no demonstration of any direct effect. You may just as well say god-did-it.You may think this explains things to your satisfaction, but it is completely inadequate here. This is a science thread. You have not explained HOW the correlations happen to match to such degree of accuracy, and you have not produced any evidence of the changes you think occurred. HOW does the " mechanism you and others wanted" actually work? HOW does it change decay rates? HOW does it change tree rings, lake varves and the ratio of 14C/12C?You can't just wave your hands and invent fantasy and expect us to applaud: what is the scientifically testable mechanism and what is the evidence that supports it? No you haven't, all you have done is make silly statements that enable your denial of the facts, statements that are contradicted in the posts you refer to.Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, Contact a dendrochronologist and tell them what you think. Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for climate changes and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.Four independently developed dendrochronologies agree for 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.The curve of 14C/12C ratios and tree ring age generally matches the normal exponential decay curve for 14C, while showing some effects of climate change that also show in the tree rings.This means that the method has been validated to within 99.5% accuracy. No, that's where you stand ... in denial of the evidence already provided.Enjoy.

Hi once again Jzyehoshua It wasn't an answer and that wasn't a theory.A scientific theory is based on evidence and has been tested.Logical delusion is not scientific, nor a theory.You have not explained HOW they change and WHY they correlate and WHAT your experimental evidence is that validates it.Enjoy.