Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Trees growing in climates with seasons - Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn - grow in the spring and are dormant in winter. It's quite easy to understand.Dendrochronology - WikipediaBut your task here is not to nitpick methods but to explain why they all corroborate each other.

You're deflecting.If you want to discuss tree rings start a new thread - your task here is to explain why all the different methods of dating agree with each other.If they are ALL wrong, why do they agree? Is it a coincidence that all the dating methods are in error for diferent reasons but yet miraculously still agree with each other?

Are you seriously objecting to scientists removing known contamination? Would you have the same objection to police forensic scientists taking every care not to contaminate DNA samples at the scene of a murder. (Clue; defense lawyers tend to do their best to prove contamination of the sample.)I think you are now burrowing underneath the barrel, having reached the bottom of it and found it empty.

Some more age correlations for you

quote:

---

Fossil Forests
In Yellowstone Park at Specimen Ridge, a nearby volcano buried 27 forests one atop the other in rocky debris in Eocene times. After a forest grew on top of some old volcanic debris, the volcano would shower fresh debris through the air on top of it and mudslides consisting of volcanic debris would flow through it. The trunks and branches left sticking above the volcanic debris rotted away. Then a new forest would grow on top all this new debris, repeating the cycle. Animal fossils are scarce because the animals living in the forests fled the area as soon as the volcanic dust made the air hard to breathe. However, the falling debris, which broke the branches off the trunks, preserved many fossil leaves and twigs (conifers, deciduous trees, and ferns). As the rock erodes today, the petrified trees (which erode more slowly) stand upright and project above the ground. Complete root systems have been found in many of these trees. This entire deposit took over 20,000 years to form, double the maximum age of the earth allowed by ICR, and 20,000 times too long to fit into the Flood of Noah.

​

Erling Dorf (1964) has calculated all this. He noted that the oldest trees in each layer were about 500 years old when they were buried. Igneous rock requires 200 years to decay into a reasonable soil. Add these two figures, and we get the age per layer; multiply by 27 layers, and we get about 20,000 years, the minimum time in which a formation like this can arise.

​

Flood geologists, on the other hand, insist that Noah's Flood washed in heaps of uprooted trees between eruptions; they say the trees stand upright because dirt which became entangled in the roots weighted down the bottoms enough to hold the trunks upright. Nevertheless, uprooted trees today that wash onto a beach lie on their sides. F. H. Knowlton (1914), referring to a 12-foot-tall 26'/2-foot-around fossil redwood, says, "The roots, which are as large as the roots of ordinary trees, are now embedded in solid rock." William B. Sanborn (1951) says concerning two nearby pines, "Each stands about 15 feet, and shows a complete root system." Charles H. Brown (1961) says that one of the methods of finding exact forest levels was to find "the expansion of the base of an upright tree trunk immediately above the root system." One would expect the trees to be stripped of most of their roots and buried on their sides if they had been uprooted and buried in Noah's Flood.

​

In an article in some obscure religious journal cited in Robert Kofahl's Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, flood geologist Harry Coffin maintains that the tree rings within a given fossil forest layer do not cross correlate. Let's look into this.

​

Every year, a tree grows a new ring. If the rainfall varies from year to year where this tree grows, then all the rings in its wood will vary in diameter; the narrow rings grew during the dry years, and the wide ones during wet years. Dendrochronologists (tree-ring daters) correlate tree rings from different trees by comparing ring variation patterns in one tree with those in another to see whether they match.

​

Since Coffin says the petrified trees of Specimen Ridge have rings that vary enough in diameter to be worth trying to correlate, he implies that before the Flood, rainfall varied from year to year. In this, he contradicts the flood geology model without knowing it (if he assumes with Morris that no rain fell in pre Flood times). Also, since the trees all supposedly died within the same year in the Flood, the flood geology theory implies that if their rings vary in diameter at all, then all the trees everywhere in the formation should cross-correlate. Thus Coffin's claims do not stand up under analysis.

---

The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology | National Center for Science Education

This evolution=atheism meme that you guys keep churning out is total crap.Can you defend it?

So defend your position or shut the fuck up about it - it's a totally dumb stance, evolution is not atheism.

Is there any particular reason why you guys are still engaging with this obvious troll?

I guess, but it is irksome to see bandwidth wasted on disingenuous idiots simply here to display their private parts and get a horrified response.

This is just juvenile pratter, if you want to make a seriuos point you're going to have to show why the dating methods shown in the thread are wrong. You have to explain why all the methods we have that confirm each other are incorrect.Why not try that?

Let's establish how far back we have to go for you - do you belive that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Or iflonger, how much?

Ok, and the flood was about 4,300 yeras ago?

So all we have to do is demonstrate how the world is older than 6,000 years and/or that there are organisms and civilisations older than the flood.This is a science thread that deals with earth's age and how different and independent methods demonstrate beyond all doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 yeras. It just deals with simple things that we can physically count. There are many other methods that also prove the same thing - from physics, astronomy, archaeology etc - but these are the really easy ones to understand.Because these things are not related to each other an error in one can't create an error in another. Yet they all confirm each other. This is what RAZD says at the begnning of the thread. It's your job now to explain why each of these methods are not only wrong but how they can all be wrong but still agree with each other. This is called consilience, where different and independent methods all confirm a common result. It's a very, very high standard of science.It requires more than your usual two line dismissive response; it's a serious piece of scientific work. (His original post contains links to each claim which you will need to read, it's all at post 1.)

quote:

---

For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up - there are a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand:

​

Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.

​

European Oaks - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).

​

German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).

​

Lake Suigetsu Varves - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).

​

Annual Layers of Ice - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).

​

Ice Cores in Greenland - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).

​

Ice Cores in Antarctica - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).

​

The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data

​

Talking Coral Heads - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).

​

Discussion of Radiometric Correlations - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.

​

The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

---

We know that a year has lasted about 365 days since man started keeping records. That's several thousand years. So for some unexplained and unevidenced reason you think that time changed somewhere around 3,000 years ago?That would mean that day length in the remaining 3,000 years would need to last millions of years. The consequences of that on biology are unimaginable. But to just name a couple, there would be huge and detectable changes to tree rings and ice layers. In fact there would be only one ring and one ice layer before the change and they would be enormous and unmissable. But they don't exist.And in any case radiometric dating methods are unaffected by day length or time changes. It decays at a set rate regardless.

So let me get this straight, when 4,500 years ago, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, how long where those datys and nights?

I'll let you discuss that 'little difference' with others and take that as a normal year.So we're left with about 1,500 years where a year was some millions of 'normal' years long?