Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Or if tree rings in the past grew fast, as well as rapid magnetic reversals and changes, they would not tie anything in the way your beliefs infer.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Bare assertions are not evidence or reasoned argumentation,and will be ignored.

And if invisible space walruses created the universe and the appearance of history last Thursday, all bets are off.Please restrict yourself to claims for which there is evidence and present that evidence, as required by the forum guidelines you agreed to when you signed up.

Exactly. Any assertions trees did not grow fast as the record in Scripture indicates will be ignored unless proven.

I will if you do.

That's like saying, "Prove there are no unicorns."You have it backwards. If you make a positive claim - e.g. trees grew fast - then YOU are the one who has to provide evidence. You've already ignored a lot to get to your current position.

Hi, dad! Welcome aboard!Those rudists are the rudest, aren’t they? Contradicting your claims of fast-growing trees in Genesis! The nerve! Which verses say that? I don’t remember......

No problem. I always restrict. myself to claims for which there is evidence and present that evidence.But you obviously won't.

I agree that saying nature in the past was the same is like saying there were unicorns here.
The positive science claim is that nature was the same and so that therefore tree rings represent the same length of time taken for trees to grow now.
I will use the historical default position that the record in the bible is true until and unless you can support your positive claims.

Great.

What is a rudist? They wear clothes, I hope?

And that is the reality until you can show evidence that it was otherwise. That is not the default position. Historically, there have been many flood stories which do not agree with each other. You can not just pick one as the "default".

Missing or extra rings are prevalent in some species, occasional in most species, and very rare in some species. Examples of the latter are bristlecone pines, Douglas fir, and oak. Dendrochronologists use only samples from such trees.But the easiest way to demonstrate is a concept no YEC has ever even tried to address; consilience, or the agreement between several independent data sets.From Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals (click the images to make them larger): (Speleothems are stalactites and stalagmites. Suigetsu and Cariaco are annually-laid varves on a lake or sea floor. Lisan is uranium-thorium disequilibrium dating of carbonates in a dead sea. New Guinea is uranium-thorium disequilibrium dating of coral. PS 2644 is annual layers in an ice core combined with carbon-14 dating of foraminifera in a deep-sea -bottom core.)From the same reference, here's a plot covering less time, on which it's esier to se the agreement between tree rings and other methods: The horizontal axis is years before present as measured by the methods listed in the box. The vertical axis is years before present as measured on the same sample by carbon-14 dating. If all the methods agreed exactly, the data points would lie exactly on the 1:1 line shown. The fact that they don't is useful but the subject for another topic.But the data points do obviously cluster along a curve slightly below and to the right of the 1:1 line. This clustering is often called "the curves agree".I tree rings were significantly different in the past, they wouldn't cluster with the other methods. Unless all those other methods are off by the same amount as the tree rings. That would require some major f**king with the fundamental constants of the Universe carefully tuned and coordinated to make all the independent methods off by the same amount, and life as we know it probably couldn't exist in such a Universe.What's your explanation for the consilience?Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Since science cooked up a new origins story, the creation story may not be the default in some circles. However, science claims must be supported in ways other than beliefs.The main story of Noah and the flood has not changed.

Yes, and they are.Since this forum is a science forum, you are subject to the same constraint. If you don't want to be, you are welcome to post in one of the faith forums.