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.
LOL your voodoo woo answer keeps changing. The big problem for you is that the tree ring record is continuous. There is no point at which all the trees died then a gap and then trees that lived before the gap.
You need a gap for the flood to have rings from before the flood and you just do not have that. Of course having the trees in the same places before and after is also a problem for flood geology rearranging the world with massive changes too, but that is a different voodoo woo answer to different problems with reality. The fact that the answers contradict each other means at least one is wrong.
So where is your gap in time in the tree rings for the flood? THere is none, therefore there is no ring record of before flood and we do not even need to consider your latest voodoo woo fantasy. All the tree rings come from this side of the flood, they are annual rings (you've run out of excuses) and there was no flood for over 10,000 years.
A "sea" change?? What is that about?
About an abrupt and totally different kind of behavior yet it looks exactly like it always did: voodoo woo wishing.
The only thing I question are the dates. Yes, we can, the flood dates are pretty well known. About 4500 years ago.
And there is no gap in the tree ring data. It shows life continues without break growing on mountains in the Sierra Nevada the Ireland to Germany. Looks like you need to question those dates and who came up with them: they are falsified by the evidence.
The rings do not stop at 4400 years ago, if you notice. Let's try and stick with the facts.
As I said, the change was after the flood, again, no problem at all!
LOL. Exactly. And all the data we have is "after the flood" because it is continuous. There is no gap in the data for the flood, so no "before the flood" data is involved.
Time to face reality Keys\simple. {abe} You may think you have "dismissed the refutations firmly", but all you have done is deny the evidence and engaged in a series of unsubstiated everchanging wishes that the evidence show something else than they do. Denial is not refutation, it is "dismissal" but for the wrong reasons:
It is dismissal of reality that conflicts with your fixed false beliefs. It is not reasoned. {/abe}
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.
I'm not talking about dating with carbon-14 yet. Just about the amounts of carbon-14 in the samples. Because the C-14 comes from the atmosphere for trees (respiration), no tree ring can be the same age as another tree ring and not have the same level of C-14 in it. This means that all your voodoo woo tree rings formed in a week or a month would have the same level of C-14 in them.
{abe} Note that I throw you a bone with Don Batten and false rings. These are a well known phenomenon in dendrochronology and they are removed from the chronologies through techniques that determine them from real tree rings based on their differences. Don Batten uses these techniques to determine the false rings in his example, and thereby confirms their effectiveness (even though he then misrepresents the issue to his gullible readers). What you have been suggesting is massive false rings, and this has not been the case.{/abe}
Adding German Pines to the Mix
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.
quote:The 2 parts of the German Preboreal pine chronology (PPC), which were formerly floating, have been linked and cross-matched dendrochronologically to the absolutely-dated Holocene oak chronology. Including additional new finds, the south German part of the PPC is prolonged into the Younger Dryas and now starts at 11,993 cal BP. New pine chronologies from Switzerland and eastern Germany extend the PPC to 12,410 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue).
Note that "floating" chronologies are ones where the end is not known. There are many other floating dendrochronologies that extend further into the past, but they are not discussed here as they can't be tied by climate correlations to the existing absolute dendrochronologies. 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.
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. The formerly floating PPC has been cross-matched dendrochronologically to the absolutely dated oak chronology, which revealed a difference of only 8 yr to the published 14C wiggle-match position used for IntCal98. The 2 parts of the PPC, which were linked tentatively at 11,250 BP, have been revised and strengthened by new trees, which enabled us to link both parts of the PPC dendrochronologically. Including the 8-yr shift of the oak-pine link, the older part of the PPC (pre-11,250 BP) needs to be shifted 70 yr to older ages with respect to the published data (Spurk 1998). The southern German part of the PPC now covers 2103 yr from 11,993–9891 BP (10,044–7942 BC). In addition, the PPC was extended significantly by new pine chronologies from other regions. A pine chronology from Avenches and Zürich, Switzerland, and another from the Younger Dryas forest of Cottbus, eastern Germany, could be crossdated and dendrochronologically matched to the PPC. The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC). Therefore, the tree-ring-based 14C calibration now reaches back into the Central Younger Dryas. With respect to the Younger Dryas-Preboreal transition identified in the ring width of our pines at 11,590 BP, the absolute tree-ring chronology now covers the entire Holocene and 820 yr of the Younger Dryas.
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.
False Rings and Missing Rings
Creationists try to discredit the whole field of dendrochronology as a means to deny the massive evidence that it has compiled. Remember that this is not one tree or one species but thousands of dendrochronologies that all correlate to the same climate and annual data. A typical creationist attempt is one by Don Batten's article:
quote:Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
This article is discussed in greater detail in another thread (Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud), however he is (a) talking about a tree selected and bred by the timber industry for fast growth, that is (b) in a different subgenus (all pines are in the genus Pinus, so this is like comparing a car with a bus as modes of transportation), (c) he doesn't discuss other sources of error that can mean the tree is older than the ring data, and finally (d) he can - and did - distinguish every one of the false rings from the annual ones, just as dendrochronologists do ("up to five rings per year"). Suffice it to say, the argument from Don Batten is false and misleading and does not answer the question of how all the different dendrochronologies end up with the same climate and annual ring patterns when the scientists have accounted for the known sources of errors in the different tree lines, errors that would occur at different times in different species in different locations, for different reasons, errors that add up to only 37 years in differences between the Bristlecone Pine and the European Oak chronologies.
Note: False rings are what your extra rings would look like no matter how you wave the voodoo woo wand, and they are different from real rings and are distinguished from real rings by dendrochronologists. There were also no periods with massive numbers of false rings in any one of these three chronologies.
Carbon-14 Levels
Furthermore, the ages of the tree-ring data are validated by the carbon-14 levels in the samples. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the quantity of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample. The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 (the three common isotopes) - will have the same levels of carbon-14 in the samples today. No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact, for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time. Thus, when sample {A} is dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, and when sample {B} is also dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, the carbon-14 content validates the age - because, growing in the same environment, they could not be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.
The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations
quote:Carbon has 13 known isotopes, which have from 2 to 14 neutrons in the nucleus and mass numbers from 8 to 20. Carbon-12 was chosen by IUPAC in 1961 as the basis for atomic weights; it is assigned an atomic mass of exactly 12 atomic mass units. Carbon-13 absorbs radio waves and is used in nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry to study organic compounds. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is a naturally occurring isotope that can also be produced in a nuclear reactor.
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%.
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:
During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of nitrogen (with 7 protons).
Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.
The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:
(Image based on calibration curve from Wikipedia(2) - Both images are in the public domain.)
Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to C-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.
quote:A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:
t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t1/2
where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.
These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":
This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:
If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.
Conclusions
The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.
Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.
{abe} While it is possible for samples of slightly different ages to have the same C-14 levels, {/abe} samples with different carbon-14 content cannot be the same age.
False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, in every tree used in teh chronology, in locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results. {abe} They would still be identifiable as false rings (particularly in the oak trees) due to their differences in growth patterns from annual rings. {/abe}
Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis. This is highly unlikely to be done.
The logical conclusion is that this confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.
Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.
This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated based on tree-ring data alone.
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 12,405 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
And we haven't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg.
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 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/.../art00008 (abstract)
Gagnon, Steve, "Glossary: Beta Decay" Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Glossary Term - Beta Decay
Higham, Thomas, "The 14C Method" Info Radiocarbon Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from The method
Hajdas-Skowronek, Irka, "Extension of the radiocarbon calibration curve by AMS dating of laminated sediments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar" PhD Thesis, 1993, Institute of Particle Physics, Zurich, Switzerland. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/.../radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf
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
You are still missing a gap in the tree ring data that would allow for a flood to have occurred, so the flood cannot have occurred after these tree rings were formed. Voodoo woo for changes in climate etc before the flood do not and cannot apply if the data is after the flood. THe flood cannot have occurred for 12,405 years. This is a factor of 3 on your date, so the interpretation or the source for this date is in error.
quote:LOL your voodoo woo answer keeps changing. The big problem for
quote:you is that the tree ring record is continuous. There is no point at which all the trees died then a gap and then trees that lived before the gap.
False, first of all you were not even able to provide the record of 4500 rings ago, in any detail to see if there was any difference at all. When we also consider that the change likely took almost no time, there would not be expected any great change.
False. Not if all the trees on earth grew only after the flood. Sorry you seemed to have missed that.
So, absolutely no problem at all.
quote:About an abrupt and totally different kind of behavior yet it looks exactly like it always did: voodoo woo wishing.
Being alive still, there are some things that go on. The changes would not reflect in the rings much, if at all. They would simply now use another light, and altered molecular and atomic level changes, and life process.
quote:And there is no gap in the tree ring data. It shows life continues without break growing on mountains in the Sierra Nevada the Ireland to Germany. Looks like you need to question those dates and who came up with them: they are falsified by the evidence.
That doesn't matter when the living trees all were after the flood.
quote:LOL. Exactly. And all the data we have is "after the flood" because it is continuous. There is no gap in the data for the flood, so no "before the flood" data is involved.
Right. As far as living trees, anyhow.
quote:Time to face reality Keys. {abe} You may think you have "dismissed the refutations firmly", but all you have done is deny the evidence and engaged in a series of unsubstiated everchanging wishes that the evidence show something else than they do. Denial is not refutation, it is "dismissal" but for the wrong reasons:
You pretend there is evidence that there isn't, why live in denial??
quote:It is dismissal of reality that conflicts with your fixed false beliefs. It is not reasoned.
Who is "Abe"? I dismiss nothing at all, but your attempts at dismissing the reality that you have no clue what the state of the past was like. Why make stuff up?? I prefer honesty.
quote:I'm not talking about dating with carbon-14 yet. Just about the amounts of carbon-14 in the samples. Because the C-14 comes from the atmosphere for trees (respiration), no tree ring can be the same age as another tree ring and not have the same level of C-14 in it. This means that all your voodoo woo tree rings formed in a week or a month would have the same level of C-14 in them.
Moot point! How the carbon comes is not an issue at all. How it used to come is. Try and focus. Unless you claim that it used to come the same way, in which case, --prove it!
quote: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.
Then it is not an issue. If a tree could grow in a week, no overlapping is a problem.
In fact, even raising things like false rings is a strawman.
quote:Carbon-14 Levels
Furthermore, the ages of the tree-ring data are validated by the carbon-14 levels in the samples. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the quantity of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample. The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14
FALSE!!! Speculation. Unbased! You assume a same past state where the carbon only got there as it now does. FIRST you need a same state, then I will believe you. Meanwhile, you are simply talking a myth.
quote: quote:Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day.
So what, we are talking about the past, and if there was no decay, why would there even be these rays entering anywhere?
quote:Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.
Now, yes. But not in a different state past. For all we know, the results of the life processes of trees could have produced carbon, and simply not worked as it now does, with this state, this light, these physical universe laws, etc.
quote:These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":
It may also be interesting to look at how a different life process worked, and how much nitrogen, and carbon, and etc were used in what way. Present based musings only go so far.
quote:The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.
Establishing that carbon was present. Now, we need to ask why, in the past, that was so. Not sit there assuming the present workings can be projected to infinity, and beyond!
quote:Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis. This is highly unlikely to be done.
Done! The carbon was a part of the past process, not produced as it now is.
quote:The logical conclusion is that this confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.
That is ONLY as logical as the assumption that the state of the past was the same, and also only as evidenced.
{ABE} stands for "added by edit" and marks the beginning of section so added, while {/ABE} marks the end of the section added by edit. This is to let you know where I have added stuff when I edited it to reduce confusion if you started with a pre-edited version.
False. Not if all the trees on earth grew only after the flood. Sorry you seemed to have missed that. So, absolutely no problem at all. Being alive still, there are some things that go on. The changes would not reflect in the rings much, if at all. They would simply now use another light, and altered molecular and atomic level changes, and life process. That doesn't matter when the living trees all were after the flood.
Okay we'll start with this premise...
Message 19 Then it is not an issue. If a tree could grow in a week, no overlapping is a problem. In fact, even raising things like false rings is a strawman.
And accept this as another working premise...
Moot point! How the carbon comes is not an issue at all. How it used to come is. Try and focus. Unless you claim that it used to come the same way, in which case, --prove it! You assume a same past state where the carbon only got there as it now does. FIRST you need a same state, then I will believe you. Meanwhile, you are simply talking a myth. Now, yes. But not in a different state past. For all we know, the results of the life processes of trees could have produced carbon, and simply not worked as it now does, with this state, this light, these physical universe laws, etc. Establishing that carbon was present. Now, we need to ask why, in the past, that was so. Not sit there assuming the present workings can be projected to infinity, and beyond! Done! The carbon was a part of the past process, not produced as it now is.
And this ... assuming you mean carbon-14 (14C) and not all forms of carbon (the normal carbon-12, the other common isotope carbon-13, and rarer rest of the 13 known isotopes): we are after all talking about the proportion of 14C to 12C in the samples and not the presence of carbon itself in the structure of all organic molecules, right?
So what, we are talking about the past, and if there was no decay, why would there even be these rays entering anywhere?
And this concept ... we'll accept these premises for the purpose of the argument and with no judgment at this time on their possible validity and without substantiation on your part to claims of having "biblical evidence" in support of your position.
When it does come down to you actually providing some of this long promised "biblical evidence" we need an acceptable criteria for what is actual "biblical evidence" and what is interpretation of "biblical evidence" --
Criteria for biblical evidence:
it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts: http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/
it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.
If you do not have that, then you do not have "biblical" evidence, but evidence of some human interpretation of "biblical" evidence. What you have is an interpretation that is not necessarily universal and which is certainly subject to human error, pride and delusion. Interpretation is not evidence. There is no argument on this - you either have it or you don't.
Back to the evidence:
Now, assuming that all this happened after the flood -- as you now claim -- means we need to compress all the data into a very brief period of time.
quote:The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world. The Nile valley forms a natural geographic and economic unit, bounded to the east and west by deserts, to the north by the sea and to the south by the Cataracts of the Nile. The need to have a single authority to manage the waters of the Nile led to the creation of the world's first state in Egypt in about 3000 BC.
We'll be generous and set the end of your speculation period as 3000 BC: certainly there is no record of changed growth patterns in the historical record of Egypt. So the period under discussion is from your flood date (assumed for now) of "About 4500 years ago" (Message 14) to about 3000 BC, or 5,000 years ago. OOPS?
Message 14 ... the flood dates are pretty well known. About 4500 years ago
Looks like you need to review your sources and provide the information that it is based on, as there is a severe conflict in the information here. You say you have biblical evidence: let's see it. Not some interpretation, the actual KJV citation. Otherwise I call voodoo woo doodoo delusion.
Until then, we have a negative time interval for your period of voodoo woo magic growth and physics defying suspension of molecular behavior.
To proceed one needs to assume, based not on a complete lack of evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence, that some period of {X} years ending at some point {Y} in the past involved your voodoo woo magic time.
Entering into this delusional world of growth and behavior for the sake of continuing the argument, we have a couple of possibilities for 14C in proportion to 12C in the growth of all organic organisms:
(1) the ratio 14C/12C was fixed at some ratio level {R} during this period, with 14C being neither added (by any means) to the atmosphere, ground or whatever, nor removed (the no-decay period is in effect) by any means, and the proportion had always been at ratio level {R} until decay was introduced (and with it the production of 14C by solar activity as we see today, seeing as this is a reversed decay process),
(2) the ratio 14C/12C started at zero either at creation or at some time {T}, such as the end of the flood, and then rose steadily to ratio level {R} by time {Y} when normal decay and production process took over,
(3) there was no 14C before the flood, that the flood caused the production of 14C to start or released 14C at level {F} so that by the time {Y} we are at level {R} by either (1) where {F}={R}, or (2) where {F} + (d14C/dt)({Y}-{T} = {R}
In any event we have ratio level {R} at time {Y} and we have a process that produces 14C that should show up in the evidence of the ring layers of the trees formed by the successive layers of growth of new living tissue around the previous ring layers:
If the whole tree grew in a week then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.
If all the ring layers are getting new carbon during the growth of the tree then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.
If the new ring layers are getting their carbon from the environment, and the old ring layers have the carbon ratios that were in effect when they grew, then we should see a progression of carbon ratio with ring layers that matches the above scenarios for the generation of the 14C/12C ratios.
IE: either
all rings will have the same ratio {R} at time (Y) - OR
the rings will progress from {F} to {R} over the time {T} to {Y} by either (1), which has the same result as above, (2) which shows a progression or (3) which shows a sudden appearance of ratio {F} and then the same effect as (1) or (2) - OR
if the trees don't start growing until after time {T}, the same as above with only (1) or (2) possibilities.
At the time {Y} when the decay of 14C (and all other radioactivity processes) begins, then all the 14C will begin to decay at the same rate. It does not matter whether this rate is the same as currently observed or not, as all the 14C in the world will be affected equally by this commencement of decay. Because decay would affect all 14C equally it would also preserve the results of the incorporation of 14C into the tree rings as listed above, with {R} being reduced over time by the decay and everything else being proportional to {R}t/{R}Y: the level at time t to the level at time {Y}. This would then show up in the data as such: either a horizontal line or a linear progression from {F} or zero to a transition point on the decay curve (either tangent or not).
The actual data
The actual data shows an exponential decay curve with some variation up and down due to the flux in 14C/12C ratio or some other effect. When we correct the data according to the climate information from the tree rings (variations in width of the fast growth portion of the rings) then these up and down variations are markedly reduced. According to the current science of dendrochronology, dendroclimatology, the physics of 14C production and radioactive decay, most of the variation would be accounted for by such climate changes (some other factors affect 14C production, such as sun cycles, but these are longer term effects).
Thus the actual 14C ratio levels existing in all the dendrochronology data support the scientific model as being valid. Notice that we are talking about time within the first half-life period of 14C, the first tic mark on the horizontal scale in this diagram:
This continues to hold for the duration of time that the tree rings represent based on the current sciences, which is about two tic marks on the horizontal scale shown above.
Nowhere in the data is there any linear effect such as noted above that would be needed to support your voodoo woo concepts as provided by you without substantiation of any kind (in spite of numerous claims).
That is ONLY as logical as the assumption that the state of the past was the same, and also only as evidenced.
Without some kind of substantiation for your numerous claims of "biblical evidence" to actually show reference in the bible to these kinds of claims I am calling deep doodoo on your voodoo woo magic concepts. Certainly the only myth I am aware of that involves extraordinary growth of plant material is the Jack-and-the-Beanstalk story. If this is your evidence then there are geese that lay golden eggs and harps that sing and giants that live in clouds, as well as a number of other child folk-tale myths that would have equal validity.
Time to put up or shut up: stop cowering behind the woodshed and start facing reality.
Enjoy.
ps (abe)
Message 9 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: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.
As noted previously, the Prometheus tree is missing the early growth section because that has been worn away by the weathering of the tree over time. This is why they know the tree is actually older than the count of the rings. You still lose. (/abe)
Edited by RAZD, : added "{F} or" to "linear progression from zero to a transition point on the decay curve"
I would vote not -- as long as you play by the rules of this thread. You may be wise to refrain from other threads until this is finished (you're call), and you may want to start providing some of that evidence you claim and promise:
Message 14 But I do have some basis for my idea, the documentation of the bible. The change I have in mind, was after the flood. It is founded on bible. And the bible evidence is available.
ALso note:
The present state of the universe the bible call a temporary one. Soon to be no more as is.
Does NOT say that past times were any different, just that an unspecified future will be.
Also note specification regarding your use of "biblical evidence"
quote:Criteria for biblical evidence:
it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts: http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/
it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.
quote:And this ... assuming you mean carbon-14 (14C) and not all forms of carbon (the normal carbon-12, the other common isotope carbon-13, and rarer rest of the 13 known isotopes): we are after all talking about the proportion of 14C to 12C in the samples and not the presence of carbon itself in the structure of all organic molecules, right?
Well, how different isotopes of carbon are now produced amount to the same issue. A fundamental forces change, remember affects the strong and weak nuclear forces, and possibly the charges, and balance of many things atomic. WE must establish whether the state of the universe first was the same, to go ahead and start assuming all over the place it all worked the same as now.
quote:And this concept ... we'll accept these premises for the purpose of the argument and with no judgment at this time on their possible validity and without substantiation on your part to claims of having "biblical evidence" in support of your position.
When it does come down to you actually providing some of this long promised "biblical evidence" we need an acceptable criteria for what is actual "biblical evidence" and what is interpretation of "biblical evidence" --
Well, no need to cross that bridge until someone came to it. Since I don't think you much care what the bible says anyhow, I don't see how it really matters. That may be a bridge too far.
quote:Criteria for biblical evidence:
* it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts: http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/ * it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.
If you do not have that, then you do not have "biblical" evidence, but evidence of some human interpretation of "biblical" evidence. What you have is an interpretation that is not necessarily universal and which is certainly subject to human error, pride and delusion. Interpretation is not evidence. There is no argument on this - you either have it or you don't.
Don't worry about the bible, and the things it says happened in the past yet. You would do well to simply either admit you have no science for your same past and future, or prove it now herewith.
Back to the evidence:
quote:Now, assuming that all this happened after the flood -- as you now claim -- means we need to compress all the data into a very brief period of time.
If you mean tree growth, yes, I think a lot of it would have been after the flood.
quote: quote:The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world. The Nile valley forms a natural geographic and economic unit, bounded to the east and west by deserts, to the north by the sea and to the south by the Cataracts of the Nile. The need to have a single authority to manage the waters of the Nile led to the creation of the world's first state in Egypt in about 3000 BC.
Prove the dates, show us what they are based on. They are wrong.
quote:We'll be generous and set the end of your speculation period as 3000 BC: certainly there is no record of changed growth patterns in the historical record of Egypt. So the period under discussion is from your flood date (assumed for now) of "About 4500 years ago" (Message 14) to about 3000 BC, or 5,000 years ago. OOPS?
Simple, your dates are wrong, Egypt was after Babel, which was the time I think the big change happened. Just look at the dates, and what they are based on. Take away the same past decay claims, and have a good gander.
quote:Looks like you need to review your sources and provide the information that it is based on, as there is a severe conflict in the information here. You say you have biblical evidence: let's see it. Not some interpretation, the actual KJV citation. Otherwise I call voodoo woo doodoo delusion.
Look up the Usher chronology. I agree with it, by and large. Even if there was som room for opinion, it really isn't that much room.
quote:Until then, we have a negative time interval for your period of voodoo woo magic growth and physics defying suspension of molecular behavior.
We have the different past till 100 years after the flood, if that is what you mean. I'll have to go to Haiti and hire a translator if you keep this up.
quote:To proceed one needs to assume, based not on a complete lack of evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence, that some period of {X} years ending at some point {Y} in the past involved your voodoo woo magic time.
Y =4400 years.
quote:Entering into this delusional world of growth and behavior for the sake of continuing the argument, we have a couple of possibilities for 14C in proportion to 12C in the growth of all organic organisms:
(1) the ratio 14C/12C was fixed at some ratio level {R} during this period, with 14C being neither added (by any means) to the atmosphere, ground or whatever, nor removed (the no-decay period is in effect) by any means, and the proportion had always been at ratio level {R} until decay was introduced (and with it the production of 14C by solar activity as we see today, seeing as this is a reversed decay process),
(2) the ratio 14C/12C started at zero either at creation or at some time {T}, such as the end of the flood, and then rose steadily to ratio level {R} by time {Y} when normal decay and production process took over,
(3) there was no 14C before the flood, that the flood caused the production of 14C to start or released 14C at level {F} so that by the time {Y} we are at level {R} by either (1) where {F}={R}, or (2) where {F} + (d14C/dt)({Y}-{T} = {R}
In any event we have ratio level {R} at time {Y} and we have a process that produces 14C that should show up in the evidence of the ring layers of the trees formed by the successive layers of growth of new living tissue around the previous ring layers:
Well, a whole different growth process, and use of different light, and etc of the day would have left carbon in place. That means we don't need to produce it from the atmosphere, or decay. (Only since the time of Y)
quote:If the whole tree grew in a week then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.
First of all, we can't start hypothesizing about the pre Y growth process, as if it should have done this and that, unless we knew something about it. For example, do we even know that plants used to use photosynthesis? And if they did for sure, did the former light produce the same levels of certain kinds of carbon?
"Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio.." Isotopic Fractionation
So, how do we determine the ratio of carbon levels, based only on the present system?
quote:If all the ring layers are getting new carbon during the growth of the tree then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.
As just explained the ratios they were getting can't be measured by present ratios.
quote:If the new ring layers are getting their carbon from the environment, and the old ring layers have the carbon ratios that were in effect when they grew, then we should see a progression of carbon ratio with ring layers that matches the above scenarios for the generation of the 14C/12C ratios.
NOT if the current decay rates that are in effect, combined with the present growth methods in place for 4400 years. The half life for C14, is 5,730 yrs. That means we also had about 4400 years of present decay at work! That is something like 75% of the decay half life gone already since the change.
quote:The actual data
The actual data shows an exponential decay curve with some variation up and down due to the flux in 14C/12C ratio or some other effect. When we correct the data according to the climate information from the tree rings (variations in width of the fast growth portion of the rings) then these up and down variations are markedly reduced. According to the current science of dendrochronology, dendroclimatology, the physics of 14C production and radioactive decay, most of the variation would be accounted for by such climate changes (some other factors affect 14C production, such as sun cycles, but these are longer term effects).
Thus the actual 14C ratio levels existing in all the dendrochronology data support the scientific model as being valid. Notice that we are talking about time within the first half-life period of 14C, the first tic mark on the horizontal scale in this diagram:
In other words, you try and use climate changes to smooth out the wrinkles of what is expected. So far, I haven't really even seen you sample only rings that are beyond say, 4500!! That would only be some hundreds of rings in the early growt of the old trees. And, why not? Since that is the focus and crux of the matter of your claim.
-Rather than just trying to blend it all together, and smooth it out with some projected climactic differences!
quote:That is ONLY as logical as the assumption that the state of the past was the same, and also only as evidenced.
Hec no, as shown here, you really are just blowing smoke and flahing mirrors here. Try and focus on the rings that are beyond the time of the flood era. What about them can you tell us?
quote:Time to put up or shut up: stop cowering behind the woodshed and start facing reality.
Hey, so far I have just been letting you punch yourself out here. Soon, the games may begin.
[quote]As noted previously, the Prometheus tree is missing the early growth section because that has been worn away by the weathering of the tree over time. This is why they know the tree is actually older than the count of the rings. You still lose. [quote]
Well, well well, that is interesting!!! What about that area was different, that allowed the rings to wear away, assuming, of course as I do they ever were there!!!!!!!!
Now we need another tree, with the rings intact, or I am really really going to be suspicious here!!!! Thanks for that.
quote:Does NOT say that past times were any different, just that an unspecified future will be.
Also note specification regarding your use of "biblical evidence"
quote:Criteria for biblical evidence:
* it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts: http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/ * it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.
Then we can move on eh?
Enjoy.
Well, if you conceed the new heavens, then that is half the battle. You have admitted that this is a temporary state according to the bible.
Now, let's see if the future state is closer to the present one or the past state.
The tree of life is only in the future, and the past.
Re 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Ge 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
This tree had a known growth rate of bearing fruit every single month of the year. That means that it does not match the present at all. Since the tree was in Eden, one can assume it matched the past.
Re 22:2 - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:
I happen to use the KJV, so using it is natural. If we want to get into it, we can confirm a different past growth rate from a few other indications as well.
Then, we can look at some things recorded in the past, and see if they match up to the present state.
The flood, the tower of Babel, the long lifespans of man, and etc. There is only one way to reconcile the two, and that is by saying either it is a bunch of fables, or, that the past was very different.
I don't concede anything, just the criteria that you must pass to claim biblical evidence. It must be clear and non-ambiguous to me.
... the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
ie not of this earth.
This tree had a known growth rate of bearing fruit every single month of the year. That means that it does not match the present at all. Since the tree was in Eden, one can assume it matched the past.
We can assume nothing: this is your interpretation, the interpretation of a human which can be faulty.
All it means was that the tree was in Eden, which we have no clue where it was: could have been in "gods paradise" yes? Same place as in the future, hasn't moved.
If we want to get into it, we can confirm a different past growth rate from a few other indications as well.
Again, this involves your interpretations. Subject to mistakes.
Well, how different isotopes of carbon are now produced amount to the same issue. A fundamental forces change, remember affects the strong and weak nuclear forces, and possibly the charges, and balance of many things atomic. WE must establish whether the state of the universe first was the same, to go ahead and start assuming all over the place it all worked the same as now. "Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio.." Isotopic Fractionation So, how do we determine the ratio of carbon levels, based only on the present system? In other words, you try and use climate changes to smooth out the wrinkles of what is expected. So far, I haven't really even seen you sample only rings that are beyond say, 4500!! That would only be some hundreds of rings in the early growt of the old trees. And, why not? Since that is the focus and crux of the matter of your claim.
Actually I've covered that: we looked at the tree ring data and then predicted what the carbon 14 levels would be given that the rings are annual rings and that the laws of physics holds for molecular behavior in general and the decay of radioactive molecules in particular, and how climate as we know it today would affect the initial carbon 14 levels to then adjust the data according to the climate markers in the tree rings -- this all predicts an exponential decay curve for the 14C/12C ratio in the samples that was then born out in the data. Prediction verified. State of universal laws today applicable to the length of the tree ring data is entirely consistent with those laws being in effect.
As just explained the ratios they were getting can't be measured by present ratios.
Doesn't say that at all. That is just your interpretation of the article, and your interpretation is subject to error, mistake, etcetera. What it says is that 13C/12C ratios (both non-radioactive) can be used to fine tune the 14C/12C data for today and other times. With the ratio of fractioning being the same now and in the past though, the relation of 14C/12C today compared to 14C/12C in the past still retains the same mathematical relationship to age.
In other words, you try and use climate changes to smooth out the wrinkles of what is expected. So far, I haven't really even seen you sample only rings that are beyond say, 4500!! That would only be some hundreds of rings in the early growt of the old trees. And, why not? Since that is the focus and crux of the matter of your claim.
This is just an admission of denial of the evidence. The tree ring data extends to 12,405 years, ignoring the rest of the data is denial, not refutation, not dealing with the evidence, not belief, not interpretation, just denial. So far you have done nothing to refute the data or the fact that they represent annual tree rings that measure a portion of the actual physical age of the real world. Denial is not refutation it is
Well, no need to cross that bridge until someone came to it. Since I don't think you much care what the bible says anyhow, I don't see how it really matters. That may be a bridge too far. Don't worry about the bible, and the things it says happened in the past yet. You would do well to simply either admit you have no science for your same past and future, or prove it now herewith. If you mean tree growth, yes, I think a lot of it would have been after the flood. We have the different past till 100 years after the flood, if that is what you mean. I'll have to go to Haiti and hire a translator if you keep this up. Look up the Usher chronology. I agree with it, by and large. Even if there was som room for opinion, it really isn't that much room.
Not only no evidence, a refusal to present evidence. Your position goes from weak to untenable. Whether you agree with the Usher chronology or not is irrelevant: it is an interpretation of the data and not the data. Interpretations are human constructs and subject to error, mistake, pride, ignorance and misrepresentations. All it is amounts to opinion. When opinion is at odds with reality it is not reality that suffers by comparison.
Y =4400 years. Well, a whole different growth process, and use of different light, and etc of the day would have left carbon in place. That means we don't need to produce it from the atmosphere, or decay. (Only since the time of Y) Well, a whole different growth process, and use of different light, and etc of the day would have left carbon in place. That means we don't need to produce it from the atmosphere, or decay. (Only since the time of Y) First of all, we can't start hypothesizing about the pre Y growth process, as if it should have done this and that, unless we knew something about it. For example, do we even know that plants used to use photosynthesis? And if they did for sure, did the former light produce the same levels of certain kinds of carbon? That means we also had about 4400 years of present decay at work! That is something like 75% of the decay half life gone already since the change.
Glad you agree that you cannot claim anything about what it was like "pre Y" after spending so much time doing just that. Those premises of yours were what were evaluated. Based on your premises decay would affect all pre-Y levels exactly the same (as decay did not exist pre-Y), reducing them in proportion from that time, and NOT from the time of their being "set" in the samples. This is what is predicted by your premises and it is falsified by the data: the data is totally inconsistent with the premises. Hence your premises are shot down:
Prove the dates, show us what they are based on. They are wrong. Simple, your dates are wrong, Egypt was after Babel, which was the time I think the big change happened. Just look at the dates, and what they are based on.
Looks like denial is not just a river in Egypt ... The dates are based on the written history, the written record, one that invokes no change in historical times of any biological, chemical, physical or astronomical behavior from what we know today. These histories also include records of pre-recorded times that also do not invoke any such changes. The dates for Egyptian tombs are also verified by comparison of wood to dendrochronology and dendroclimatology data and by other methods that only confirm the historical dates.
Time for you to do the research rather than just deny the evidence. A library would be a good start. The topic is easy: Egyptian history.
Hey, so far I have just been letting you punch yourself out here. Soon, the games may begin.
More empty promises. Time to put some ice on the discussion:
Annual Layers of Ice
Tree-rings are not the only system that build annual layers that can be measured and counted. Snow and ice also follow annual patterns in their formation and deposition that allow a number of ways to determine the annual layers.
To introduce the basic methods we will start with a fairly simple but dramatic set of annual ice layers:
The Quelccaya Ice Cap
This information comes from an on-line slide show:
quote:(Slide 1) The Peruvian altiplano is a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Though the altiplano is a cold, harsh environment, large herds of hardy llamas such as these hint at the richness of South America's high grasslands. The Quelccaya ice cap rises in the background, 55 km2 of ice that provides important clues on climatic change and variability in the South American tropics. The ice sheet's summit elevation is 5670 m and its maximum summit thickness is 164 m.
(Slide 3) The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).
(Slide 6) An array of forty-eight solar panels provided enough electricity to recover two ice cores to bedrock, one 154.8 m long covering the last 1350 years, and the other 163.6 m long and 1500 years old.
(Slide 11) Two of the analyses performed on the cores are presented here, accumulation and the oxygen isotope ratio (known as d18O). Accumulation is a measure of annual layer thickness normalized to account for the compression of ice layers at depth and corrected for ice flow dynamics. The oxygen isotope ratio (a measure of the ratio of heavy oxygen (18O) to light oxygen (16O)) is a proxy measure for paleotemperature, though it also reflects changes in snow surface processes and water-vapor history.
One of the most salient features in the last millennium of climate history is the Little Ice Age, a loosely-defined period of cold temperatures and increased climatic variability that has been documented in many parts of the globe.* As this figure shows, the Little Ice Age is identified in the Quelccaya climate record as a period of 'colder' (more negative) d18O roughly bracketed between 1550 A.D. and 1900 A.D.
Note that they are talking about correlating layers with climate information provided by d18O. We'll also come across this in other measurement systems. This is the proportion of a "heavy" isotope of oxygen in the atmosphere (16O is "normal" weight oxygen)
While this series of layers only date back to ~500AD they are important for a couple of reasons: they show visible layers, and they allow calibration of the oxygen isotope ratio (d18O) as a measure of layers and of climate. These layers also show a period of sever weather that is known from history (the Little Ice Age) and the effects of a volcanic eruption nearby that occurred in 1600 AD. These results can then be applied to other ice cores.
The Dunde Ice Cap
Continuing from the same slide show:
quote:(Slide 14) The Dunde Ice Cap (pronounced Dun-duh) is extremely remote, perched on the mountain range separating China's highest desert, the Qaidam Basin, from its more famous counterpart, the Gobi. For over 40,000 years, snow has been piling up on this 60 km2 ice cap deep in China's sparsely inhabited interior. A team of paleoclimatologists from the United States and China came here in 1987 to uncover the climatic secrets locked in Dunde's icy depths.
(Slide 17) Since Quelccaya is at the edge of the moist Amazon Basin while Dunde is wedged between two deserts, it is not surprising that accumulation rates are much higher at Quelccaya. Indeed, the annual average accumulation at Quelccaya in meters of water equivalent is 1.15 m compared to just .43 m at Dunde. Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment.
Since snow accumulates more slowly at Dunde, ice from its ~140 m cores is significantly older than that from Quelccaya. While Quelccaya provides high-resolution clues to the last 1500 years of climate, Dunde stretches back over 40,000 years, well into the last ice age.
The same kind of alternating layers of dust and snow as at Quelccaya, the same kind of climate information from the oxygen isotope ratio (d18O), data that matches known climate markers, including the last ice age. Research on the Dunde Ice Cores is continuing, including analysis of the dust and pollen as markers not just of climate but of environment.
quote:High pollen concentrations between 10 000 and 4800 yr B.P. suggest that the summer monsoon probably extended beyond its present limit to reach Dunde and westernmost Tibet in response to orbital forcing. The summer monsoon retreated time-transgressively across the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau during the middle Holocene. Relatively humid periods occurred at 2700-2200, 1500-800, and 600-80 yr B.P., probably as a result of neoglacial cooling. Prominent pollen changes during the Medieval Warm Period (790-620 yr B.P.) and the Little Ice Age (330-80 yr B.P.) suggest that the vegetation in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region is sensitive to abrupt, century-scale climatic changes, such as those anticipated in scenarios of greenhouse warming.
quote:The insoluble microparticle concentrations and size distributions and oxygen isotope abundances (d180) in two 1-meter ice cores from the margin of the Dunde ice cap (38° 06 'N; 96° 24 'E; 5325 masl) drilled in 1986 and three ice cores drilled to bedrock at the summit of the ice cap in 1987 suggest the presence of Wisconsin/Würm Glacial Stage (LWGS) ice in the subtropics.
Additionally, the morphological properties of the particles in the LWGS ice are identical to those of the thick, extensive loess deposits of central china which accumulated during the cold, dry glacial stages of the Pleistocene. When the climatic and environmental records are fully extracted from the three deep cores they will provide a very detailed record of variations in particulates (soluble and insoluble), stable isotopes, net balance, pollen and perhaps atmospheric gases of CO2 and methane through the Holocene into the last glacial in the subtropics on the climatically important Tibetan Plateau.
quote:The Wisconsin (in North America), Devensian (in the British Isles), Midlandian (in Ireland), Würm (in the Alps), and Weichsel (in northern central Europe) glaciations are the most recent glaciations of the Pleistocene epoch, which ended around 10,000 BCE. The general glacial advance began about 70,000 BCE, and reached its maximum extent about 18,000 BCE.
The name Devensian glaciation is used by British geologists and archaeologists and refers to what is often popularly meant by the latest Ice Age.
It was the final glacial phase of the Pleistocene and its deposits have been found overlying material from the preceding Ipswichian interglacial and lying beneath those from the following Flandrian stage of the Holocene.
The latter part of the Devensian includes Pollen zones I-IV, the Allerød and Bølling Oscillations and the Older and Younger Dryas climatic stages.
Thus we see evidence of the end of the last glaciation period in the dust and pollen in the layers of ice from the Dunde Ice Cap in addition to the evidence of the d18O ratios. Data that also makes the concept of a world wide flood (WWF) within this period difficult, as the dust every year is of the same type and the thickness of ice and dust layers are the same from year to year indicating that the ice cap has not changed locations nor floated on water at any time in its history.
Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data.
And this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Enjoy.
References
Anonymous "Oxygen-16" Wikipedia. updated 7 Dec 2006. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Oxygen-16 - Wikipedia
Anonymous "Oxygen-18" Wikipedia. updated 7 Dec 2006. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Oxygen-18 - Wikipedia
Kam-biu Liu, et al, "A pollen record of Holocene climatic changes from the Dunde ice cap, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau" Geology; February 1998; v. 26; no. 2; p. 135-138 accessed 19 Jan 2007 from http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/26/2/135
Thompson, Lonnie G., "Wisconsin/Wrm glacial stage ice in the subtropical dunde ice cap, China" GeoJournal Vol 17, No 4 Dec 1988 DOI 10.1007/BF00209440 P517-523, SpringerLink Date 20 Oct 2004 accessed 19 Jan 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu102k4348572506/
Spring pollen, summer dust, winter snow. Annual layers accumulating for 40,000 years with no break for a flood and no disruption of the data, no change in the timing or kind of dust, which shows that the ice was in the same place for all those 40,000 years, undisturbed.
No. I've merged your accounts, the settings of the keys account were preserved, except for avatar and signature (the keys account didn't define these).
quote:We can assume nothing: this is your interpretation, the interpretation of a human which can be faulty.
All it means was that the tree was in Eden, which we have no clue where it was: could have been in "gods paradise" yes? Same place as in the future, hasn't moved.
You suggest Eden has not moved? The please show us where it is! The paradise of New Jerusalem is in the future, not in Eden of old. That is absurd. It is in this city we find the tree of life. We also found it in Eden. Past, and future. NOT now, in this present.
quote:Again, this involves your interpretations. Subject to mistakes.
How would you know, I never even mentioned them yet? We are not looking here to harmonize all bible interpretation on earth. We simply need to decide if there is a solid bible case to be made or not. There is.
™ Version 4.2
