You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat!
This is in Faith & Belief forum, so you have the most lax level of criteria for providing substantiation and validation for your position.
Well perhaps sorting it out in order might be better. First, deal with the exhibits already raised first by me.
I think the exhibits you mentioned probably did a good job of representing to stories as written in the bible, and I have no quibble with those, just as I have no real quibble with christianity in general. These exhibits would be good for non-YEC's as much as they are for YEC's. THus I'll give them a pass and move on to the ones that deal with YEC information -- ie the age of the earth and a literal flood concept -- which are not necessarily endorsed by all christians: fair enough?
We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree"
quote:Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located at approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism; the coordinates cited refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.
Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.
This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.
Any Comment so far?
{ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE}
Enjoy
That thread is nearing the point where it will be cut off (around 300 post limit to all threads) so I am proposing a new topic on just this element.
If Keys\Simple wants to keep it out of the science threads (he was pretty firm on the existing thread that it not be science forum) we can do a Great Debate on this or put it in Faith and Belief (with the original thread).
The purpose of this thread for me will to present evidence for the case that the age of the earth as portrayed in the museum is false and that a global flood could not have occurred withing that time (or any reasonable approximation), and for you to defend the age and flood occurrence as portrayed with whatever evidence or argument you wish to make.
Yes! I have no reason to believe that trees did not grow at a much faster rate, as it seems the bible indicates, in the past.
You realize that trees growing at a faster rate would not add tree rings, but would make each of the rings wider? This is demonstrable with a single species growing in different areas and is part of the science of
The rings are caused by the difference between winter and summer growth patterns, not by the actual climate existing in each season. The evidence of the tree rings is that there was some variation, from the little ice age to the medieval warm period, both recorded in the tree rings right on time.
Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating is the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree-ring growth patterns. This technique was invented and developed during the 20th century originally by A. E. Douglass, the founder of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. The technique can date wood to exact calendar years.
Growth rings, also referred to as tree rings or annular rings, can be seen in a horizontal cross section cut through the trunk of a tree. Visible rings result from the change in growth speed through the seasons of the year, thus one ring usually marks the passage of one year in the life of the tree. The rings are more visible in temperate zones, where the seasons differ more markedly.
Many trees in temperate zones make one growth ring each year, with the newest adjacent to the bark. For the entire period of a tree's life, a year-by-year record or ring pattern is formed that reflects the climatic conditions in which the tree grew. Adequate moisture and a long growing season result in a wide ring. A drought year may result in a very narrow one. Trees from the same region will tend to develop the same patterns of ring widths for a given period. These patterns can be compared and matched ring for ring with trees growing in the same geographical zone and under similar climatic conditions. Following these tree-ring patterns from living trees back through time, chronologies can be built up, both for entire regions, and for sub-regions of the world. Thus wood from ancient structures can be matched to known chronologies (a technique called cross-dating) and the age of the wood determined precisely. Cross-dating was originally done by visual inspection. Nowadays, computers are used to do the statistical matching.
Note that the change in speed is contained within each annual ring.
quote:Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are hard. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates (e.g. MBH98, Moberg05).
Second piece of evidence of a second tree is similar, from two sources:
quote:Prometheus (aka WPN-114) is the nickname given to the oldest non-clonal organism ever known, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree about 4900 years old growing at treeline on a mountain in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was cut down on August 6, 1964 by a graduate student and U.S. Forest Service personnel for research purposes, though at the time they did not know of its world-record age. The cutting of the tree remains controversial.
quote:The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6). Naturally, these ages underestimate the true ages of the respective trees (see Tree Age Determination for details), perhaps by hundreds of years in view of the fact that pith dates were not recovered for these trees. It seems likely that trees at least 5000 years old exist.
With an age of 4,789 years in 1964 when the tree was cut down this means that "Prometheus" or WPM-114 has an estimatd germination date of 2,880 BCE, just a little bit older than "Methusula." This is substantiating evidence of this age, and we will get to this below in greater detail.
The tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the science of dendrochronology take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves). Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.
The climate data from these two trees show that there was no significant change in the rate of growth for these trees during their lives, so IF trees grew at a greater rate in a biblical past period THEN this period has not been reached yet. There was also no global flood in this period as both trees continued to live.
Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time
This, I noticed is somehow in the science area? I do not plan to limit things to just the limits of natural science.
That is fine, this is a great debate and we can between us agree on the limits of evidence. It does not matter to me what you bring in for evidence at this point, just to note that what ever argument you make must agree with all the evidence in some coherent way.
Now, unless you have some way to show that fast growth also adds extra rings to the growth of trees and can document this effect, this concept is refuted and we can move on to the next level of data.
Are you ready to proceed or do you have some other question?
quote:You realize that trees growing at a faster rate would not add tree rings, but would make each of the rings wider? This is demonstrable with a single species growing in different areas and is part of the science of
The rings are caused by the difference between winter and summer growth patterns, not by the actual climate existing in each season. The evidence of the tree rings is that there was some variation, from the little ice age to the medieval warm period, both recorded in the tree rings right on time.
You assume that they grew in the present conditions, and under the present laws. Why would we assume that? If the bible indicates that light was different, and tree rate growth, why would anyone doubt it for no reason? This was talking about a long time ago, not now.
quote: The tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the science of dendrochronology take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves).
Why would tree rings NOT match? The only real question is what went on in the early part of it's growth.
quote:Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.
No need to, unless there was some evidence that the past laws and world had to have been under the same laws. Yes, we could even ask if gravity really needed to be the same. Basically, we don't really know. So, why not assume the differences in the bible past were real?
quote:The climate data from these two trees show that there was no significant change in the rate of growth for these trees during their lives, so IF trees grew at a greater rate in a biblical past period THEN this period has not been reached yet. There was also no global flood in this period as both trees continued to live.
I think I covered the tree ring issue. On a side note here, I might ask if you ever actually saw tree rings from the early part of the real old white pines? Could we really say that there may not have come a change in the world there? I have never seen any pictures of that. Never met anyone that did.
quote:That is fine, this is a great debate and we can between us agree on the limits of evidence. It does not matter to me what you bring in for evidence at this point, just to note that what ever argument you make must agree with all the evidence in some coherent way.
You assume that they grew in the present conditions, and under the present laws. Why would we assume that? If the bible indicates that light was different, and tree rate growth, why would anyone doubt it for no reason? This was talking about a long time ago, not now.
You still have not provided a reason for growing a different number of tree rings, just a reason for having different width tree rings, a concept that is falsified by the tree rings. We DON'T assume they grew in the present condition, but look at the tree rings to SEE the condition they grew in: some of those were noticeably different from today.
One of these is the "Little Ice Age" and another is the "Medieval Warm Period"
Both of these occurred in historical times and the tree rings show their effect right on time, validating the widths of the rings as climate markers btw. As we go further with the data we will come to other climate changes that extend beyond the historical record, however with these trees we have not gone back to times before recorded history, so there is no need to assume something NOT in recorded history.
quote:Recorded history can be defined as history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language, whereas history is a more general term referring simply to information about the past.[1] It starts in the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.
That's older than these trees eh?
No need to, unless there was some evidence that the past laws and world had to have been under the same laws. Yes, we could even ask if gravity really needed to be the same. Basically, we don't really know. So, why not assume the differences in the bible past were real?
This is just wishful thinking and still fails to address the NUMBER of rings. Propose a theory make a prediction based on it that can be tested for how and why it would be different. It should provide a means then to correct the laws for different behavior in the past: one of these has to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun. Calling "woo" thinking evidence is delusion.
On a side note here, I might ask if you ever actually saw tree rings from the early part of the real old white pines? Could we really say that there may not have come a change in the world there? I have never seen any pictures of that. Never met anyone that did.
Ignorance is bliss eh? Try talking to Dendrochronologists. Try going to the White Pine Mountains: the Prometheus site can be visited and you can look at the tree stump.
This of course is a little rough, cracked and weathered now (cut in 1964) and has not been prepared for lab analysis, but you can clearly see that there is no vast change in the tree rings. Go there and put your fingers on it if you need to.
I think I covered the tree ring issue. That is easy.
So far all you have done is ignored the evidence, not deal with it. Tree rings are annual effects of the orbit of the earth around the sun, not of vast and wonderous mythical climate changes wrought by wonderous woo, concepts that you have absolutely NO evidence for from any source other than wishful thinking. Remember denial of evidence is not faith, it is:
Seeing as you have presented NO reason why tree rings should be different in the past we will proceed with the next bit of evidence, the full dendrochronology based on the bristlecone pines:
quote:Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.
Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the pict of cells annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.
Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.
A number of tree samples must be examined and cross dated from any given site to avoid the possibility of all the collected data showing a missing or extra ring. Further checking is done until no inconsistency appears. Often several sample cores are taken from each tree examined. These must be compared not only with samples from other trees at the same location but also with those at other sites in the region. Additionally, the average of all data provides the best estimate of climate averages. A large portion of the effects of nonclimatic factors that occur in the various site data is minimized by this averaging scheme.
The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further. The hope is to push the date back to at least 8,000 BC. This will be important as the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, and to have a record of this transition period would offer scientists a wealth of information.
The practical limit with this dendrochronology is back to the end of the last ice age (not a flood).
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.
This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
Note that this data ALONE invalidates the age given in the museum and it invalidates the concept that a global flood could have occurred in that time, which was the purpose of this thread: QED.
This is only ONE piece of evidence. I have more if you care to keep playing.
quote:You still have not provided a reason for growing a different number of tree rings, just a reason for having different width tree rings, a concept that is falsified by the tree rings.
No, you misunderstand. If a tree used to be able to grow in a month, or some such short time, it had all the rings it needed, The rings never represented years, of course.
quote:We DON'T assume they grew in the present condition, but look at the tree rings to SEE the condition they grew in: some of those were noticeably different from today.
Ahh. Correction, you do so assume that. You look to the tree, to see the size and traits of the rings, which you assume mean certain things, based on only how they now grow. Absolutely.
quote:One of these is the "Little Ice Age" and another is the "Medieval Warm Period"
Not really that relevant, because this is after the period of the flood. I expect present rates were in effect.
quote:Both of these occurred in historical times and the tree rings show their effect right on time, validating the widths of the rings as climate markers btw. As we go further with the data we will come to other climate changes that extend beyond the historical record, however with these trees we have not gone back to times before recorded history, so there is no need to assume something NOT in recorded history.
In other words, as we see similar rings beyond the range of the present growth rates, you assume they are the same. No good. There has to be a reason. Evidence.
quote:Recorded history can be defined as history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language, whereas history is a more general term referring simply to information about the past.[1] It starts in the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.
That's older than these trees eh?
No! Your dates for recorded history are also assumptions. I assume that the recording started after the flood.
quote:No need to, unless there was some evidence that the past laws and world had to have been under the same laws.
False. That assume that all we need do is assume that they were the same for no reason. Unless you can prove that, you have no claim at all.
quote:This is just wishful thinking and still fails to address the NUMBER of rings. Propose a theory make a prediction based on it that can be tested for how and why it would be different. It should provide a means then to correct the laws for different behavior in the past: one of these has to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun. Calling "woo" thinking evidence is delusion.
Why correct laws??? Why must they be here to begin with??? The number of rings is of no concern whatsoever if a tree could grow in maybe a week or so.
quote:Ignorance is bliss eh? Try talking to Dendrochronologists. Try going to the White Pine Mountains: the Prometheus site can be visited and you can look at the tree stump.
I don't mean the stump. I mean a close up picture of the earliest rings in that stump. It seems to be that you are also ignorant of these. However blissful you think that may be.
"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." ??
quote:So far all you have done is ignored the evidence, not deal with it. Tree rings are annual effects of the orbit of the earth around the sun, not of vast and wonderous mythical climate changes wrought by wonderous woo, concepts that you have absolutely NO evidence for from any source other than wishful thinking. Remember denial of evidence is not faith, it is:
Deal with this, present growth does not relate to the past earth growth, unless you have some proof it was the same. Woo can't help you. Try and deal in facts, reality, real relevant evidence, and proof. Making up things like woo does not help your case.
quote:Seeing as you have presented NO reason why tree rings should be different in the past we will proceed with the next bit of evidence, the full dendrochronology based on the bristlecone pines:
Sounds good to me, soon as you present, of course, proof that tree rings should be the same in the past. We wait for this.
quote:Note that this data ALONE invalidates the age given in the museum and it invalidates the concept that a global flood could have occurred in that time, which was the purpose of this thread: QED.
Note that this unbased assumption of the present being the key to the past is not supported in any way.
quote:This is only ONE piece of evidence. I have more if you care to keep playing.
Well, I was hoping to move on, and maybe corner you so you would have to call up your brother for advice on space, and physics, etc. As it is, all you offer is a claim that trees grew at the same rate for no apparent good reason but that they do so now. If you want to limit the scope of the debate here to NOW, fine. You have a valid point. If you want to take this to the early creation era, why, you had better come up with reasons, and evidences that it had to have also applied then.
No, you misunderstand. If a tree used to be able to grow in a month, or some such short time, it had all the rings it needed, The rings never represented years, of course.
You still do not get it. Growth has nothing to do with rings, rings are caused by the orbit of the earth around the sun and the change of seasons that result. Having all the resources to grow in one month what normally takes a year now, just means that the one month period of the ring would be as wide as the SUMMER portion of current growth, then next month would ADD to that SUMMER growth and make it twice as wide, the THIRD month the same. You do NOT get a winter portion to make the ring. You do NOT get added rings by this concept, it is a false argument.
You can't just wish it so.
Yet you just did that and nothing else. You have absolutely NO basis for your claim and no reason for it to work, you just WANT it to be so.
Ahh. Correction, you do so assume that. You look to the tree, to see the size and traits of the rings, which you assume mean certain things, based on only how they now grow. Absolutely.
Note that this unbased assumption of the present being the key to the past is not supported in any way.
No we look at the tree rings to see the characteristics that are consistent with the known data, the known behavior of all plants, and the known behavior of the solar system and the known factors of climate and seasons on growth and the development of all plants, and we look to see how those factors are represented in the rings. This is the difference between evidenced based reasoning and woo. We look to see if there are reasons to think that things could change significantly in the past and see none. This is rational thinking.
You however assume a sea change based on a complete lack of data and information, theory and evidence. This is delusion not rational thinking.
Not really that relevant, because this is after the period of the flood. I expect present rates were in effect.
No! Your dates for recorded history are also assumptions. I assume that the recording started after the flood.
Fascinating that these recorded history items also include astronomical observations that match those made today. Amazing that they also record occurrences that match from one society to another between china and egypt. Your dismissal of history is like your dismissal of evidence that condtradicts your belief: delusion.
Seeing as you have yet to establish when any possible mythical woo period of the flood occurred you can't say when something was before or after it either. Thus you can still expect - not "present rates" (the little ice age and the medieval warm period were not "present rates" but significant differences) - that the factors we see at work to still work the way we see them: there is no alteration in the timing of the seasons nor the orbit of the earth around the sun nor the rotation of the earth on it's axis, nor any other factor that would affect the delineation between summer growth and winter growth that make up an annual ring.
Until you provide something substantial and defined for your concept you're still talking woo wishful thinking unfounded on reason.
In other words, as we see similar rings beyond the range of the present growth rates, you assume they are the same. No good. There has to be a reason. Evidence.
As it is, all you offer is a claim that trees grew at the same rate for no apparent good reason but that they do so now.
And the evidence has been presented, you just ignore or misunderstand it. Certainly to think it could be DIFFERENT we would need evidence: where is yours? what is it? how does it work? Wishful thinking woo explanations are not evidence and are not based on reason, they are delusions.
I looked at your link, and saw this. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." ??
Gosh, I'm sorry. Looks like you may actually have to do a little work on your own then. Go to a link I've given you before:
Scroll down to the picture of the tree stump (it's at the second sub paragraph titled "The cutting of the tree") and click on it. I know it's asking a lot, but you did want to see it eh?
I don't mean the stump. I mean a close up picture of the earliest rings in that stump. It seems to be that you are also ignorant of these. However blissful you think that may be.
You can save this picture to your computer and zoom in on it to your hearts content. If that is not enough take a hike and go see the real thing. Put your face in the evidence.
Deal with this, present growth does not relate to the past earth growth, unless you have some proof it was the same. Woo can't help you. Try and deal in facts, reality, real relevant evidence, and proof. Making up things like woo does not help your case.
Then stop invoking woo and start looking at the evidence. Tree rings are caused by seasons, not by woo growth pattens. Past earth growth is not assumed, nor is it created in some mythology by woo, it is shown by the evidence.
Why correct laws??? Why must they be here to begin with??? The number of rings is of no concern whatsoever if a tree could grow in maybe a week or so.
Then it would have no rings. Stop making stuff up and start dealing with reality.
Well, I was hoping to move on, and maybe corner you so you would have to call up your brother for advice on space, and physics, etc.
Yes, you've been here before, you are misrepresenting yourself as a new poster, giving false witness about yourself. I've known that for some time. Good luck with the suspension issue on that.
European Oaks
Before moving on to something different, this is some additional data that reinforces and extends the previous data and correlates with it (you know, that correlation issue you've had trouble with before eh? It just keeps popping up). It also reaches back to more climate change than we have seen in recorded history:
My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.
The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes.
quote:Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.
Because ring-porous species almost always begin annual growth with this initial flush, missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact, the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer. A volcanic eruption in the year 1815 caused much cooler temperatures globally, thus causing oak trees to remain dormant. Therefore, no clear annual ring was formed in 1816 for certain locations in Europe.
Occasionally, offsets in oak tree rings can be problematic when trying to crossdate the rings. Dendrochronologists therefore must be careful when working with oak species, as these rays can cause a misdate of one year.
Note that sources of error are identified and accounted for. Crossdating is one method to check for errors. Another is to build two independent chronologies from the same species in two different locations. For an idea of the accuracy of the data and the amount of error involved we have this:
quote:The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Gttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998).
Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).
The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements.
There was not a large difference in the calculated k values between early and recent measurements in the Belfast lab for the Irish oak samples when the previously applied laboratory error multiplier on the more recent data set is considered; however, the early measurements of German oak were more variable than those of Irish oak. The recent Heidelberg data sets had smaller k values than older measurements. The reason for the early variation is partly due to the fact that these samples were measured to help place a tree in the dendrochronology as it was being built instead of measured consecutively, and also because many of these samples contain only a few tree rings but are being compared to decadal samples.
Uncertainty in single-ring cal ages for dendrochronologically-dated wood is on the order of 1 yr for highly replicated and cross-checked chronologies and is therefore ignored in the analysis.
There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in (then) ~8,000 years, an error of 0.5%. Third, is that when one oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, now the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in ~7600 years, an error of 0.5%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and these initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating and including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.
The combined oak and pine tree-ring chronologies of Hohenheim University are the backbone of the Holocene radiocarbon calibration for central Europe. Here, we present the revised Holocene oak chronology (HOC) and the Preboreal pine chronology (PPC) with respect to revisions, critical links, and extensions. Since 1998, the HOC has been strengthened by new trees starting at 10,429 BP (8480 BC). Oaks affected by cockchafer have been identified and discarded from the chronology.
These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.
Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).
Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.
This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.
Enjoy.
References
Anonymous "Before Present" Wikipedia. Updated 28 Dec 2006. accessed 17 Jan, 2007 from Before Present - Wikipedia
Friedrich, Michael et al, "The 12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak and Pine Tree-Ring Chronology from Central Europe”a Unique Annual Record for Radiocarbon Calibration and Paleoenvironment Reconstructions" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1111-1122(12) accessed 17 Jan 2007 from Content Not Found: Ingenta Connect (abstract)
Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. Updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Not Found
I realize that this again seems like a lot of information, but it is really quite simple:
there are three long fixed dendrochronologies, two developed from oak trees in different parts of the Europe and the bristlecone pine we started with from the USof (N)A.
the tree rings of deciduous species (oaks) are more marked than those of evergreens (pines) due to the shedding of leaves during the winter months.
a failure to shed leaves (change in behavior of the oaks at some woo time in the past) would be marked by a change in the type of ring from deciduous to evergreen: this does not occur in the data, therefor both leaves continued to be shed in the winter and winter continued to be the cause for the slowed growth than marks an annual ring.
the three chronologies correlate for climate data as well as age except for minor differences.
the minor differences in age of these chronologies are on the order of 41 (before one correction) and 37 years over a period of over 8,000 years, an error of 0.5% in the overall correlation of all three.
this confirms that all three trees grew under the same astronomical, seasonal and world climate conditions, that the rings are in fact annual.
the data now extend back to near the end of the last ice age.
And there is still no evidence that anything would have been different during the period covered by the data, different enough to make some kind of woo possible. You need evidence to base a different pattern on and you have none. It's time to stop hiding behind the woodshed and start facing reality.
No, you misunderstand. If a tree used to be able to grow in a month, or some such short time, it had all the rings it needed, The rings never represented years, of course.
You need a system that mimics years with additional seasons to start and stop the growth. Something that would be observed as an year for growth.
This leaves you with a problem: either they had more seasons before the flood - which is nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of - OR they were actually counted as years when they were partial years - and the age of the earth is younger in your voodoo woo world than you imagine, a length change ALSO nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of (although it could explain the "age" of some people eh?)
This just does not work, even in voodoo woo land.
Do you want to try again or do you want to move on to Carbon-14 evidence?
quote:You still do not get it. Growth has nothing to do with rings, rings are caused by the orbit of the earth around the sun and the change of seasons that result. Having all the resources to grow in one month what normally takes a year now, just means that the one month period of the ring would be as wide as the SUMMER portion of current growth, then next month would ADD to that SUMMER growth and make it twice as wide, the THIRD month the same. You do NOT get a winter portion to make the ring. You do NOT get added rings by this concept, it is a false argument.
False, and we start to see here that it is you that do not get it.
Your point is that the tree rings are laid down a certain way now, seasonally. If the trees did grow in a different past world, where things were fundamentally different, there would be no summer rings, or winter. If we, for example had a tree grow in 2 weeks, with, say, 336 rings, each ring, of course does not represent a summer. It represents an hour. In that early earth, we may have had a cool of the day, an windy part of the day, a nighttime, a daytime, a time when the waters came up from below to water the earth. In fact, for all we know, the water could have come up every 3 hours. Etc. In other words, we still could have rings, and variations in a pattern, that later would be replaced by a pattern taking more time.
quote:Yet you just did that and nothing else. You have absolutely NO basis for your claim and no reason for it to work, you just WANT it to be so.
It is actually you that have been doing this, and I simply point it out. But I do have some basis for my idea, the documentation of the bible. What do you have to tell us that the state of this earth was the same, and tree growth rates had to be the same as well?? -Nothing at all.
quote: No we look at the tree rings to see the characteristics that are consistent with the known data,
Precisely my point, thanks for admitting it. Now, think about it, where do you look? You look right here, in this present state world.
quote: the known behavior of all plants, and the known behavior of the solar system and the known factors of climate and seasons on growth and the development of all plants, and we look to see how those factors are represented in the rings.
As I just pointed out you look at present knowns, and assume they apply. That just is not enough to make big claims over.
quote:This is the difference between evidenced based reasoning and woo. We look to see if there are reasons to think that things could change significantly in the past and see none. This is rational thinking.
Now we are talking. You claim it is rational to assume that it was always the same state universe. Why? -Because you see no change in this present state. But, if this whole state of the universe were the change, we would not be able to see any change, because our norm would be this state.
quote:You however assume a sea change based on a complete lack of data and information, theory and evidence. This is delusion not rational thinking.
A "sea" change?? What is that about?
quote:Fascinating that these recorded history items also include astronomical observations that match those made today.
If they were made after the change, why would they be any different, I fail to see your point??
quote:Amazing that they also record occurrences that match from one society to another between china and egypt. Your dismissal of history is like your dismissal of evidence that condtradicts your belief: delusion.
If you think I dismiss any history at all, you are delusional. The only thing I question are the dates.
quote:Seeing as you have yet to establish when any possible mythical woo period of the flood occurred you can't say when something was before or after it either.
Yes, we can, the flood dates are pretty well known. About 4500 years ago.
quote:Thus you can still expect - not "present rates" (the little ice age and the medieval warm period were not "present rates" but significant differences) - that the factors we see at work to still work the way we see them: there is no alteration in the timing of the seasons nor the orbit of the earth around the sun nor the rotation of the earth on it's axis, nor any other factor that would affect the delineation between summer growth and winter growth that make up an annual ring.
Ahh, no. The little ice age, etc. was simply a time of flux in this present state world.
quote:Until you provide something substantial and defined for your concept you're still talking woo wishful thinking unfounded on reason.
The change I have in mind, was after the flood. It is founded on bible. The evidence fits. So, claiming that it was the same state universe before that is impossible. Until you provide something substantial and defined for your concept you're still talking woo wishful thinking unfounded on reason. Just assumption. That is where you are at.
quote:And the evidence has been presented, you just ignore or misunderstand it. Certainly to think it could be DIFFERENT we would need evidence: where is yours? what is it? how does it work? Wishful thinking woo explanations are not evidence and are not based on reason, they are delusions.
And the bible evidence is available. You just ignore or misunderstand it. Certainly to think it could be THE SAME we would need evidence: where is yours? what is it? how does it work? Wishful thinking woo explanations are not evidence and are not based on reason, they are delusions.
quote:Gosh, I'm sorry. Looks like you may actually have to do a little work on your own then. Go to a link I've given you before:
Scroll down to the picture of the tree stump (it's at the second sub paragraph titled "The cutting of the tree") and click on it. I know it's asking a lot, but you did want to see it eh?
Pretty good. The reason, however I asked for a close up of the rings was not because I never thought they were there. It was because I wanted to see if there was any differences discernible to the eye, after 4400, or 4500 tree rings ago. That pic is just a stump.
quote:You can save this picture to your computer and zoom in on it to your hearts content. If that is not enough take a hike and go see the real thing. Put your face in the evidence.
No need to, I never doubted for a moment. I simply asked if we had a close up of the early part of the ring record. No is the answer. Thanks.
quote:Then stop invoking woo and start looking at the evidence. Tree rings are caused by seasons, not by woo growth pattens. Past earth growth is not assumed, nor is it created in some mythology by woo, it is shown by the evidence.
How they are caused is not a topic of debate here. That would be, how they used to grow, in case you forgot the past is the issue here.
quote:Then it would have no rings. Stop making stuff up and start dealing with reality.
Reality is that they do have rings, and that they also did, as the evidence for the time period bears out quite clearly. The rings do not stop at 4400 years ago, if you notice. Let's try and stick with the facts.
quote:Yes, you've been here before, you are misrepresenting yourself as a new poster, giving false witness about yourself. I've known that for some time. Good luck with the suspension issue on that.
I don't need luck, I have plan B, remember, and I am not misrepresenting anything. Does one need to post on a forum using some legal name? No. One uses a screen name.
quote:Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time.
No problem at all. The state of the universe was different, and light, etc. Therefore, it would be expected to affect all plants, not just pine trees.
quote:Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).
I don't claim false rings. The different state fast growth had real rings.
quote:Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.
Not at all, if a tree could grow in a week, crossing over some pre present state patterns is no problem at all.
quote:This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
As I said, the change was after the flood, again, no problem at all!
quote:And there is still no evidence that anything would have been different during the period covered by the data, different enough to make some kind of woo possible. You need evidence to base a different pattern on and you have none. It's time to stop hiding behind the woodshed and start facing reality.
There is no evidence that the state of the past was the same, and that is what knocks your science claim down for the count. As it is, the evidence can be interpreted either way. All that matters is the starting assumptions, and we can apply that same principle to the stars above, light, gravity, you name it. The present state of the universe the bible call a temporary one. Soon to be no more as is. Science has nothing to say about it.
quote:You need a system that mimics years with additional seasons to start and stop the growth. Something that would be observed as an year for growth.
This leaves you with a problem: either they had more seasons before the flood - which is nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of - OR they were actually counted as years when they were partial years - and the age of the earth is younger in your voodoo woo world than you imagine, a length change ALSO nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of (although it could explain the "age" of some people eh?)
This just does not work, even in voodoo woo land.
Do you want to try again or do you want to move on to Carbon-14 evidence?
I already covered this last post, it was not seasons that former the tree ring patterns then. Warm, cool, moist, etc,--yes. The timeframes are different.
Now, in this different past state, which the bible indicates, (and is supposed to exist again in the future), there is no decay. The bible says the earth and sun, and stars will last forever. The New Jerusalem as well, is eternal. No way can it decay away, or into something else.
Therefore, if we assume this no decay in the past, all dates and carbon dating is null and void. And, assume it many will, until you prove that it was some other way.
rometheus_tree1.jpg
™ Version 4.2