Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You wouldn't know evidence for the flud from evidence against the flud. You haven't the training nor expertise. What few "experts" you may cite are all religiously motivated to extend the fiction of the flud despite the facts, which they are forced to deny, and the weight of the evidence, which they are forced to ignore.Your participation in the Grand Canyon discussions on this site is ample evidence to the extreme lengths biblicans, like you, will go to deny the reality of well evidenced and settled geological fact.Deny all you want but your alternative evidences and made up interpretations have all been shown to be bogus in the last 200 years.Tilt at the windmills, M'Love. Your myths died a charlatan's death generations ago. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You claim that any strata is a product of the Flood no matter what it looks like. You are incapable of describing what features a geologic formation would need to have in order for it to be evidence against a flood.

And you don't. What is there to believe? The fraud of you making stuff up is exposed. Obviously, I can refer to a nature that actually exists.

So how many were there? What rings? You have shown us no rings.

You don't know what they look like because you haven't looked. Curiously the fact that you haven't seen the evidence does not mean it does not exist, you need to know where to look. One place is the location of the Prometheus stump, which is open to the public.A quick google on "Bristlecone pine tree rings" brings up lots of pictures like this: Notice that this picture shows another correlation with a historical date ...A basic investigation into the science of dendrochronology tells you what annual rings look like, or you could read the beginning of the thread ... (see Message 2):

quote:

---

As both these trees have been dated by their tree rings, and they are about the same age they are very useful in building a dendrochronology as the whole ring pattern can be observed and checked for the initial 4,839 year period covered by both trees. Normally only dead samples are cut for cross-sections and live trees are normally sample by taking cores (as was being done on Prometheus when the tool broke). Cores and cross-sections of different samples are aligned by the pattern of annual rings that show the variations in climate from year to year.

​

Dendrochronology (7)

​

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 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 non-climatic 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.

---

​

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,

---

To cram the evidence into your fantasy fast growth you need to produce a full ring many cells thick every 4 minutes, one that shows the same annual pattern shown above with summer growth fading into winter stasis. You have yet to explain how that can possibly happen in your magic time. Pretending go-did-it is not science, it is religious fantasy escapism.Then there is the C14 levels in the rings taken from the atmosphere as the rings grew, and for your fantasy changing every 4 minutes in perfect synchrony around the world. And then there is the 11 year cycle of peaks in the C14 levels ... all not explained by fast growth.AND it doesn't explain the correlation to the Egyptian chronology. Attacking the Egyptian chronology as useless does not explain the correlation. Correction, I diss what you assert with no supporting objective empirical evidence. There is no evidence that your mythical fantasy flood ever occurred, no evidence that Abraham, Shem, Noah etc were real people and not myth. And yes, all mythology is considered fake history until you can show evidence for it being real. So you say, repeatedly, but you offer no evidence of this for the period used, while several publications show the absolute dates as validated for the period in question. But not for the period in question. The Egyptian chronology I referred to shows history backed up by objective empirical evidence. Here is the previous discussion of this again (Message 979):

quote:

---

Apparently they don't even know who the first king was.

​

Which is irrelevant to the kings where the artifacts were found in their tombs. More red herring lack of ability to follow context.

​

The biggest item in there is question marks!!!! Ha. Some science.

​

The artifacts in question are from the Old Kingdom, the third dynasty, not any earlier than that. This makes your continued railing on about spirit kings pointless and irrelevant babble.

​

The tombs are objective empirical evidence as are the artifacts that were found in them. The point in time we are interested in is (from previously}:

​

"So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology."

​

Try this instead: List of Pharaohs ... page down to the Old Kingdom, notice the dates on the left.

​

Notice that 2660 BCE is the Third Dynasty. The beginning of the documentation with actual ages according to the objective empirical evidence used by the Egyptologists in this chronology..

​

No question marks there.

---

Repeating a point that has already been addressed and invalidated (at least twice so far), does not make it any more valid, it just shows you are not debating in good faith, that you don't learn and don't change your tune when you are shown to be wrong.The pseudo made up "chronology" (with no dates) that you presented is NOT even supported by one tiny shred of objective empirical evidence, yet you seem to think it is superior to the Egyptian one.That is laughable. Says the person making stuff up right left and center, the person who has invented an imaginary "former nature" so he can pretend that actual objective empirical evidence does not show an old age for the earth.Here's what you didn't answer, again (Message 996):

quote:

---

Let me know when you have real evidence.

​

We could start with any objective empirical evidence that your fantasy flood actually occurred and when it occurred. Because all your assertions hinge on that being a fact instead of a fantasy.

​

A peer reviewed scientific article on that would be a place to start.

​

If you can't provide that evidence, then your argument is kaput and useless drivel.

---

So you are still spouting unsupported drivel. Repeating it does not make it any more valid or real.Enjoy

The evidence for the Flood is obvious. Sometimes things are too obvious for the scientific mind. It's just a matter of standing back and noticing the facts apart from the absurd interpretations laid on them. The sciences of the past are all guesswork, they can never be established because you can't send somebody there to see if you're right or not. But WE have a written testimony to the past which is a lot more than you guys have.Strata are formed by water, we've got gigant layers of disparate sediments all over the world, commensurate with a gigantic water event; you don't need fancy interpretations for each layer of sediment. And fossils in the bazillions are in-your-face evidence of exactly what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things. And they were preserved because the Flood provided the perfect conditions for fossilization, rapid deposition and burial, and only the Flood could have done this as consistently we see occurred. There is plenty of evidence of rapid deposition and really NO evidence for time periods of millions of years, all that is imposed on the facts not derived from them.Sometimes the "experts" build castles in the air.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To sum up your post, you are claiming that the correct way to investigate the past is to take a superficial view of the evidence and jump to the conclusions you wish to reach.Looking at the evidence in more detail and finding out that the evidence does not support you at all is absurd, guesswork, building castles in the airTo rational people the methodology employed by scientists is obviously far superior to yours.

Your claims are undermined by the fact that you will label any geologic formation as a product of the flood, no matter what it looks like. You don't have evidence. You have a dogmatic belief impervious to evidence.

So where are the peer reviewed scientific articles based on objective empirical evidence that support this assertion? Where is the documentation that they are "absurd interpretations" rather than ones based on all the evidence, including the little details you like to overlook? Curiously a single anecdotal story is not objective empirical evidence, where is the evidence to support the claim that this written story is anything but mythology?Science, on the other hand, has lots of evidence, including but not limited to the evidence in this thread that shows the earth is significantly older than any young earth scenario. The evidence includes multiple correlations between different measuring systems that validate the age measurements.You yourself cannot get beyond the living Bristlecone pine trees:

quote:

---

RAZD Message 277: There are three trees that are documented to be over 4800 years old, the oldest is 5014 years old this year.

​

There is no change in the formation of the tree rings during those years.

​

Can you explain this without magic and fantasy?

​

We can discuss how this evidence is tested and validated, if you are interested, and we can discuss how the scientific method can be used to extend this chronology to 8000 years with bristlecone pines, and then to 12000 years with Irish and German oak chronologies.

​

Note that this evidence invalidates any evidence you think demonstrates a young earth.

​

Faith Message 278: No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.

---

There is so much more evidence in this thread that to continue believing in a young earth is willfully ignorant at best and delusional at worst. Ignorance is curable ... but you have to be willing to let go of falsified beliefs. ... and carefully place them delicately into sorted layers that show evolutionary changes in species from layer to layer ... matching radiometric isotope level changes from layer to layer that somehow fall in perfect match to the exponential decay curve ... (correlations ... what this thread is about), something that doesn't -- can't -- happen in the real world floods because of the real world constraints of physics ... Among all the other problems with your flood scenario/s that have polluted other threads. It doesn't belong here, it belongs on a flood thread ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The very reason for the philosophy of science is precisely because the "obvious" is so often drastically wrong.Cases in point: Da Flud, ex nihilo creation, young Earth, gods, demons, 4 humors, republicans, bigfoot, christians and so much more.

The evidence for the Flood is scientific fact, you know, actual sedimentary deposits, actual fossils in the bazillions, not any of your wacko stuff.

quote:

---

The evidence for the Flood is scientific fact, you know, actual sedimentary deposits, actual fossils in the bazillions, not any of your wacko stuff.

---

The existence of the strata and the fossils is scientific fact. That doesn’t mean that they are evidence for the Flood.

... that show deposition occurred over many years, due to the radioactive isotope levels in them, many depositions that alternated small fine particles with heavy large particles when these particles settle at different rates (Stoke's Law), some of them with annual patterns (see Message 5, Lake Suigetsu Varves). ... that are sorted layer by layer just as if they were laid down over centuries, with small and large fossils of one age mixed up, but never mixed up with other layer fossils, sorted by their evolutionary heritage of generational change in each species that is shown to occur layer after layer.Here is an example, a (simplified) foraminifera biochart:

quote:

---

​

Foraminifera are separated into two groups following their life strategy, namely the planktonic and the benthic foraminifera. Planktonic foraminifera occur worldwide over broad laditudinal and temperature belts. They typically float in the surface or near-surface waters of the open ocean. Their wide geographical range, combined with a short vertical stratigraphic time range (due to rapid evolution), make them excellent index fossils at family, generic and species levels. The figure on the left shows the ecological distribution of larger benthic foraminifera and key smaller benthic and planktonic foraminifera through space and time.

---

bold added for emphasisGeological Age vertically, Ecology horizontally.

quote:

---

Index fossils (also known as guide fossils or indicator fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). Index fossils must have a short vertical range, wide geographic distribution and rapid evolutionary trends. Another term, Zone fossil is used when the fossil have all the characters stated above except wide geographical distribution, they are limited to a zone and can't be used for correlations of stratas. [1]

---

When we find these index fossils they are always sorted in the same order from top layers to bottom layers and they always correlate with the geological age of the layers they are found in.There is no known mechanism for flood water to do this sorting, just as there is no known mechanism for flood water to sort radioactive isotope levels to match the radiometric ages of these layers. The correlations show that sedimentary layers correlate with age with the radioactive isotope levels and with the species buried in them that show evolution from layer to layer.Explain the correlations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The entire community of geologists world wide over the past 200 years have studied the actual sediments and have concluded, rather forcefully, that your flud never happened. Your self-serving re(mis)interpretations of their findings means nothing. Real scientists determine what the sediments show and what that evidence means, not some little old lady from Nevada no matter how lovely she may be. Sorry, Love, you and yours lost out on this flud thing ages ago.

Only to a creationist desperately trying to ignore all the hundreds of flaws in her argument that science explains. Some things seem obvious to your ignorant mind, but you are wrong. Too bad you never notice all the flaws in your absurd interpretations. This is all fantasy on your part that has nothing to do with reality as has been demonstrated to you hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. All you have is a fictional story told by a bunch of bronze age goat herders. And even that fictional story does not support your fantasy. Actually, the evidence clearly shows that those layers all over the world were deposited over huge periods of time, sometimes with erosion unconformities between layers. This is not consistent with the kind of evidence a flood leaves behind. There are thousands of different times and events when the whole planet is considered. You mean you don't need them, but we do and we also have them, neat, huh. And yet we can see clearly that the fossils were not all deposited at the same time and in fact they were deposited over the last several billion years, with more complex organisms being deposited since 600 million years ago. You are just repeating the same made up crapola that we see every time you start raving about the flood.You have no explanation for the order of the fossils or the layers and until you do your fantasy does not fit the reality of what we can see. You have previously stated that you can ignore whatever the evidence shows because your version of the story is correct, no matter what. Pretty much all the time you think fiction describes reality.