Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[random325nicaea]

AV, I know you are a somewhat intelligent guy. You are in a tough spot where you have built your life up according to the rigid interpretation of an ancient book, but you do the best you can to go by, justifying the discrepansies and have some fun bantering with us god-less folk. However, I think you are in grave error encouraging dad. I think he's actually ill, and we should not encourage his behaviour.

I say this in all seriousness, and not as a cheap-shot at dad. The guy needs help, and we could spend our time here providing that help.

actually, Dad would probably function just fine where he lives, then again over there they would probably just take practical applications of science for granted and ungratefully spew their beliefs on the next generation.....
but the man doesn't have to contribute to the body of human knowledge if he's incapable, he'll just have to leech of his local environment and use the money from his labour to finance the very science he tries to bash....

you have the people who are only fit to work the factories, and you have the people who can do the research.....

PS: i don't think anyone of us could "help" Dad.
probably the only one who might be able to do that is a die hard evangelical preacher who can use his authority and blind faith to convince Dad that he needs to start thinking and stop raving....usually authority can pull that off with his kind of people...

 

[Split Rock]

We can also assume that all the kinds were on the ark. Therefore the more recent geological evidence has the kinds in them, See any feathered dinos, or any dinos in that?? No. Do we see dinos in various parts of the earth? Yes. That means they were not in Eden, it was in one part of the earth!

Nonsense. The most recent geological evidence only has the most recent species fossilized in them. This is a basic principle of stratigraphy, which goes back to the late 18th century.

Where is Eden now? Where are the remains of the original "kinds?" You cannot tell us.

No, you need to find a way to prove otherwise.

We do not "prove" in science. Only religious fanatics who believe their interpretation of old holy books is inerrant "prove" things. Like many Christian Fundamentalists/ Evangelicals who post here.

I agree. Except some supposed higher level thing. We know man was in Eden, and beast. We know that man was not created all over the planet at once! That is a known biblical quantity. Therefore it is quite reasonable to deduce that the life in Eden moved on out to the still uninhabitable parts of the earth. That is why Eden was needed, the earth was not suitable yet for all life.

True, man did not evovle everywhere at once. We evolved in Africa, and migrated from there. As far as the rest of the planet being "unihabitable" this is complete speculation on your part with no backing even from scripture.

The usual methods are all those that use the present as the key to the past. If there is no physical evidence, and you point solely to the same state belief based nonsense they falsely label 'dating' then you have no case indeed.

Then why do all the dating methods agree?? I wish one of you creationists would explain that!

What is expected is that the planet was largely uninhabitable. The created trait of hyper evolution was needed to spread out. If a bird needed to live in the world of the day, it seems they may have needed to adapt to dinos, and walk, so as to be safe, and have plenty to eat. It is illogical to assume dinos were a created kind. Not unless you put them on the ark! Same with many of the extinct evolved critters that evolved from Eden's creatures. They did not go on the ark, just the kinds of creation!

How did "hyper evolution" work?

Why is it "illogical" that dinos were a created "kind?" Who says they were not on the ark? If they existed in Eden, as they must have according to a literalist interpretation of scripture, then they must have been on the ark, becayse Noah was commanded to put pairs of all creatures with the "breathe of life" on the ark.

We KNOW from the bible birds were already here at Eden, even before man. That is absolute. No opinion, or guessing needed. It makes sense that the migrating, fast evolving created kinds adapted to the conditions they met as they moved out.

Nonsense. We "KNOW" no such thing. Genesis is clearly poetic allegory, and the fact that birds are mentioned before or after anything else is irrelevant. It could have been written the opposite way, without changing what was important to the story, and that is the theological message. I really wish the writers could be here to read the stuff you guys say about their work. I don't know if they would laugh, cry, or be outraged by how you have made their work look silly, while claiming it is "God's Word."

 

[dad]

actually, Dad would probably function just fine where he lives, then again over there they would probably just take practical applications of science for granted and ungratefully spew their beliefs on the next generation.....
but the man doesn't have to contribute to the body of human knowledge if he's incapable, he'll just have to leech of his local environment and use the money from his labour to finance the very science he tries to bash....

you have the people who are only fit to work the factories, and you have the people who can do the research.....

PS: i don't think anyone of us could "help" Dad.
probably the only one who might be able to do that is a die hard evangelical preacher who can use his authority and blind faith to convince Dad that he needs to start thinking and stop raving....usually authority can pull that off with his kind of people...

Yeah yeah. Don't worry about helping dad, he is fine, thankk you very much.

Worry about helping the tattered same state basis of so called science that has been battered, and exposed, and found wanting. That is what many people expect on a scoience and creation forum, to present a solid and supportable science case. Then, if it is questioned, to deal with it, if you can.

 

[dad]

Nonsense. The most recent geological evidence only has the most recent species fossilized in them. This is a basic principle of stratigraphy, which goes back to the late 18th century.

Yes, so tell us about the geology of the Chinese province I raised. Tell us about what was above and below, and how it is placed in the stratigraphic levels there. Or are you just talking?

You almost seem to insinuate that you could, without belief based dating of decay, show that the little dinos were in a certain place in the strata? Let's see you. No need to argue about it, either you can, or can't.

Where is Eden now? Where are the remains of the original "kinds?" You cannot tell us.

To know where the kinds are, one must know what they were. With hyper evolution, the waters are less than clear. However, there are some clues on some kinds. I assume that if a creature is mentioned in the bible, it is a kind. For example, the wolf, lion and lamb. Another issue to factor in, when looking at the record, is where in real time it was. If a kind evolved one way before the flood, in the different world of the day, it would likely evolve another way after the flood! That means that the same kind, in many different adaptions, woulld be looked at by you as coming from each other! When science misses the different state past forest, for the present state trees, he is totally lost, and clueless. He lacks the key. The resulting dreamt up scenariios are therefore, literally absolutely foolish. And that is a compliment, they are much worse than that. As the big bang, and absurd explanation attempts at where life came from illustrate.

We do not "prove" in science. Only religious fanatics who believe their interpretation of old holy books is inerrant "prove" things. Like many Christian Fundamentalists/ Evangelicals who post here.

No, you sure don't. But you sure claim stuff that ain't proven. Fancy that. Real knowledge and science of the present state, applies only in this state. The issue becomes, not how long we assume and feel, and believe that this universe fabric exited, but how far ahead, and back, it can be proven. The working knowledge within this fishbowl of the temporary state (science) needs no proof, really. Just the ususal scientific method stuff. The foundational beliefs it is built upon, and rests solely on, for claims of the past, however require hard proofs. Concrete evidence. Absolute validity. So far, they forgot to check, and raced off to dreamland on the fuel of assumption only.

It will have to be demonstrated that the vehicles they use can travel to the future and far past universe, and observe, and test, and know what the state of that time was or will be. Until then, it is only graphed onto what is called science by epoxy glue! It is not in the realm of observation, and touching, and testing, and knowing in the least way at all! I therefore cannot include the ungodly, unbiblical, insane dreams and baseless beliefs and speculations as a real part of science. That would be fraud.

True, man did not evovle everywhere at once. We evolved in Africa, and migrated from there. As far as the rest of the planet being "unihabitable" this is complete speculation on your part with no backing even from scripture.

False, I am happy to report with 100% authority. Look in Prov 8. A gal that was there watching God create says that she was with man in the habitable part of the earth. That means that a part was habitable, not all. It is also logical that God made a garden for life, precisely for that reason.
About your claim on Africa. I have no problem if Eden was near what is now Africa. But I would ask you for proof. Presisely how do you know? Genetics?

In the past, when looking at where Eden was, I guessed west Africa. Not too far from Gabon area, coincidentally. But of course I am not certain, and that is subject to evidence.

Then why do all the dating methods agree?? I wish one of you creationists would explain that!

They do not agree, save with themselves. They are at odds with God. They are merely concocted from a present state, and how things now work. There is no agreement anywhere at all, but off in the invented and fabricated dreamland of the future or past, millions or billions of imaginary years away! None. Even there, they had to hammer things into place, sometimes tossing tens of millions of years around.

How did "hyper evolution" work?

Real fast. With the cellular differences, and different light, etc, fast changes were possible, and even the order of the day, the evidence seems to indicate. I am not sure if the offspring changed, or the actual creature itself, even. There were a lot, lot, lot of changes in a fairly short time. One period pre flood of 1600 years, or whatever it was, and a tad over a century after the flood, if I deduce the times correctly.

Why is it "illogical" that dinos were a created "kind?" Who says they were not on the ark? If they existed in Eden, as they must have according to a literalist interpretation of scripture, then they must have been on the ark, becayse Noah was commanded to put pairs of all creatures with the "breathe of life" on the ark.

No!!! God put the KINDS in there! Not every tom dick, and harry adaption, and evolved creature from that kind. After all, with hyper evolution after the flood also for a bit, there was no need. Besides there were major differences in the planet weather, climate, surface, etc after the flood. Even in the hundred year period. For example I suspect that was what brought on the ice age, and allowed it to get like it got in a hurry. That nullifies the ice core dating stuff, unless a same state is first proven, of course.

Nonsense. We "KNOW" no such thing. Genesis is clearly poetic allegory, and the fact that birds are mentioned before or after anything else is irrelevant.

It is relevent to a bible believer. And to the facts of what went down. If science hadn't tossed it out, but took it seriously, they may have actually gotten somewhere. As it is they stuff the wuhole universe into an imaginary speck. How clever.

It could have been written the opposite way, without changing what was important to the story, and that is the theological message. I really wish the writers could be here to read the stuff you guys say about their work. I don't know if they would laugh, cry, or be outraged by how you have made their work look silly, while claiming it is "God's Word."

Impossible. Jesus referred to it. So does much of the New Testament, and the old testament. Can't be waved away.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, so tell us about the geology of the Chinese province I raised. Tell us about what was above and below, and how it is placed in the stratigraphic levels there. Or are you just talking?

You almost seem to insinuate that you could, without belief based dating of decay, show that the little dinos were in a certain place in the strata? Let's see you. No need to argue about it, either you can, or can't.

To know where the kinds are, one must know what they were. With hyper evolution, the waters are less than clear. However, there are some clues on some kinds. I assume that if a creature is mentioned in the bible, it is a kind. For example, the wolf, lion and lamb. Another issue to factor in, when looking at the record, is where in real time it was. If a kind evolved one way before the flood, in the different world of the day, it would likely evolve another way after the flood! That means that the same kind, in many different adaptions, woulld be looked at by you as coming from each other! When science misses the different state past forest, for the present state trees, he is totally lost, and clueless. He lacks the key. The resulting dreamt up scenariios are therefore, literally absolutely foolish. And that is a compliment, they are much worse than that. As the big bang, and absurd explanation attempts at where life came from illustrate.


No, you sure don't. But you sure claim stuff that ain't proven. Fancy that. Real knowledge and science of the present state, applies only in this state. The issue becomes, not how long we assume and feel, and believe that this universe fabric exited, but how far ahead, and back, it can be proven. The working knowledge within this fishbowl of the temporary state (science) needs no proof, really. Just the ususal scientific method stuff. The foundational beliefs it is built upon, and rests solely on, for claims of the past, however require hard proofs. Concrete evidence. Absolute validity. So far, they forgot to check, and raced off to dreamland on the fuel of assumption only.

It will have to be demonstrated that the vehicles they use can travel to the future and far past universe, and observe, and test, and know what the state of that time was or will be. Until then, it is only graphed onto what is called science by epoxy glue! It is not in the realm of observation, and touching, and testing, and knowing in the least way at all! I therefore cannot include the ungodly, unbiblical, insane dreams and baseless beliefs and speculations as a real part of science. That would be fraud.


False, I am happy to report with 100% authority. Look in Prov 8. A gal that was there watching God create says that she was with man in the habitable part of the earth. That means that a part was habitable, not all. It is also logical that God made a garden for life, precisely for that reason.
About your claim on Africa. I have no problem if Eden was near what is now Africa. But I would ask you for proof. Presisely how do you know? Genetics?

In the past, when looking at where Eden was, I guessed west Africa. Not too far from Gabon area, coincidentally. But of course I am not certain, and that is subject to evidence.




They do not agree, save with themselves. They are at odds with God. They are merely concocted from a present state, and how things now work. There is no agreement anywhere at all, but off in the invented and fabricated dreamland of the future or past, millions or billions of imaginary years away! None. Even there, they had to hammer things into place, sometimes tossing tens of millions of years around.


Real fast. With the cellular differences, and different light, etc, fast changes were possible, and even the order of the day, the evidence seems to indicate. I am not sure if the offspring changed, or the actual creature itself, even. There were a lot, lot, lot of changes in a fairly short time. One period pre flood of 1600 years, or whatever it was, and a tad over a century after the flood, if I deduce the times correctly.

No!!! God put the KINDS in there! Not every tom dick, and harry adaption, and evolved creature from that kind. After all, with hyper evolution after the flood also for a bit, there was no need. Besides there were major differences in the planet weather, climate, surface, etc after the flood. Even in the hundred year period. For example I suspect that was what brought on the ice age, and allowed it to get like it got in a hurry. That nullifies the ice core dating stuff, unless a same state is first proven, of course.



It is relevent to a bible believer. And to the facts of what went down. If science hadn't tossed it out, but took it seriously, they may have actually gotten somewhere. As it is they stuff the wuhole universe into an imaginary speck. How clever.

Impossible. Jesus referred to it. So does much of the New Testament, and the old testament. Can't be waved away.

OK dad, enough of your nonsense.

We've done a perfect job showing how our universe works, at least going back approximately 13.7 billion years, up to the BB.

Have you been able to prove your "different state past"? Where is it? What journal has published your theory? Have you written a book?
Is your hypothesis generally excepted by Feynman, Hawking, Davies and other prominent astrophysicists?

You spew absolute nonsense. Back up your assertions of this supposed "different state past." I demand it. Put up or shut up. I want to see your hypothesis, and your equations used to substantiate your claim. That's how science works!

 

[AV1611VET]

You spew absolute nonsense. Back up your assertions of this supposed "different state past." I demand it. Put up or shut up. I want to see your hypothesis, and your equations used to substantiate your claim. That's how science works!

Have you seen my explanation of how the past was different?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Have you seen my explanation of how the past was different?

Nope. Don't care either. Unless you actually use reality (you know the real kind of reality, not the made up kind you believe as reality).

Dad is adamant in claiming that science is wanting in explaining our universe. He has absolutely ZERO in the way of evidence for a 'different state past.' He would be laughed at and ridiculed in a court of law.

It's time he put up or shup.

And no AV, I'm really not interested in hearing how you pigeon hole facts to fit your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[gipsy]

False, I am happy to report with 100% authority. Look in Prov 8. A gal that was there watching God create says that she was with man in the habitable part of the earth.

I don't know what "Prov 8" should be, but how could anybody be watching "God create" if he/she/it isn't even "created"?

Concerning the rest of your gibberish I still think it's completely irrelevant for science and religion alike since you're not able to prove with 100% certainty that you existed 2 minutes ago.
I say the almighty FSM created the whole world out of thin air just as it seems now 3 minutes ago. Prove me wrong!

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Don't care either.

Well, the only reason I asked is that you seem to be getting a little emotional about it.

I thought maybe you would like to know where we're coming from.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, the only reason I asked is that you seem to be getting a little emotional about it.

I thought maybe you would like to know where we're coming from.

Nope. Not emotional, just tired. Dad keeps spouting how science is wrong, and his theory is right. Fine. Let's see the data. It will fall or stand on its own merits. That's how science works, agreed?

In fact, maybe I'll start a new thread: Official call for "different state" papers. Show us the data. There no "opinion" when it comes to math. The equations are there. They are right, or they're not.

And why would I be interested to see how you guys justify reality to fit your worldview. Seriously. This is called postdiction, and is the exact opposite of science. You say, "The holy bible is true," now all I have to do is make the facts fit my interpretation.

Science says, "these are the observable facts, what should we conclude?" There is a big difference between the two. It is unfortunate you're unable to see that.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, so tell us about the geology of the Chinese province I raised. Tell us about what was above and below, and how it is placed in the stratigraphic levels there. Or are you just talking?

You wrote: "Therefore the more recent geological evidence has the kinds in them." What do all the older fossils represent, then??

You almost seem to insinuate that you could, without belief based dating of decay, show that the little dinos were in a certain place in the strata? Let's see you. No need to argue about it, either you can, or can't.

The only "belief based" dating is one using the bible.

To know where the kinds are, one must know what they were. With hyper evolution, the waters are less than clear. However, there are some clues on some kinds. I assume that if a creature is mentioned in the bible, it is a kind. For example, the wolf, lion and lamb. Another issue to factor in, when looking at the record, is where in real time it was. If a kind evolved one way before the flood, in the different world of the day, it would likely evolve another way after the flood! That means that the same kind, in many different adaptions, woulld be looked at by you as coming from each other! When science misses the different state past forest, for the present state trees, he is totally lost, and clueless. He lacks the key. The resulting dreamt up scenariios are therefore, literally absolutely foolish. And that is a compliment, they are much worse than that. As the big bang, and absurd explanation attempts at where life came from illustrate.

Show me how hyper-evolution works. In detail. Or are you just talking?

No, you sure don't. But you sure claim stuff that ain't proven. Fancy that. Real knowledge and science of the present state, applies only in this state. The issue becomes, not how long we assume and feel, and believe that this universe fabric exited, but how far ahead, and back, it can be proven. The working knowledge within this fishbowl of the temporary state (science) needs no proof, really. Just the ususal scientific method stuff. The foundational beliefs it is built upon, and rests solely on, for claims of the past, however require hard proofs. Concrete evidence. Absolute validity. So far, they forgot to check, and raced off to dreamland on the fuel of assumption only.

Science works via what is inferred by the preponderance of the evidence. Dadology works by whatever dad comes up which is based on his assumptions about his erroneous interpretation of scripture. Which do you think is more reliable?

It will have to be demonstrated that the vehicles they use can travel to the future and far past universe, and observe, and test, and know what the state of that time was or will be. Until then, it is only graphed onto what is called science by epoxy glue! It is not in the realm of observation, and touching, and testing, and knowing in the least way at all! I therefore cannot include the ungodly, unbiblical, insane dreams and baseless beliefs and speculations as a real part of science. That would be fraud.

All because science disagrees with your hubris-engorged, arrogant, erroneous interpretation of scripture does not mean it is "ungodly, unbiblical, insane dreams and baseless beliefs and speculations." Unless, perhaps in your one-person fantasy world where you are God's Prophet.

False, I am happy to report with 100% authority. Look in Prov 8. A gal that was there watching God create says that she was with man in the habitable part of the earth. That means that a part was habitable, not all. It is also logical that God made a garden for life, precisely for that reason.

You have NO authority. You are NOT God. You are NOT his Prophet. You do NOT speak for God.

About your claim on Africa. I have no problem if Eden was near what is now Africa. But I would ask you for proof. Presisely how do you know? Genetics?

Both genetics and paleontology.

In the past, when looking at where Eden was, I guessed west Africa. Not too far from Gabon area, coincidentally. But of course I am not certain, and that is subject to evidence.

OK

They do not agree, save with themselves. They are at odds with God. They are merely concocted from a present state, and how things now work. There is no agreement anywhere at all, but off in the invented and fabricated dreamland of the future or past, millions or billions of imaginary years away! None. Even there, they had to hammer things into place, sometimes tossing tens of millions of years around.

They agree with each other, yes... that is what I aksed you. Can you provide an answer? Why do they all agree with each other? And no, one more time, your interpretation of scripture is NOT God's Word. Blasphemer!

Real fast. With the cellular differences, and different light, etc, fast changes were possible, and even the order of the day, the evidence seems to indicate. I am not sure if the offspring changed, or the actual creature itself, even. There were a lot, lot, lot of changes in a fairly short time. One period pre flood of 1600 years, or whatever it was, and a tad over a century after the flood, if I deduce the times correctly.

What "evidence" indicates this? Show it to me. How exactly does "hyper-evolution" work? How does "different light" cause it? Tell us. Or are you just talking?

No!!! God put the KINDS in there! Not every tom dick, and harry adaption, and evolved creature from that kind. After all, with hyper evolution after the flood also for a bit, there was no need. Besides there were major differences in the planet weather, climate, surface, etc after the flood. Even in the hundred year period. For example I suspect that was what brought on the ice age, and allowed it to get like it got in a hurry. That nullifies the ice core dating stuff, unless a same state is first proven, of course.

You "suspect" and "assume" and speculate all over the place. I can make up stories too... they are not "God's Word."

It is relevent to a bible believer. And to the facts of what went down. If science hadn't tossed it out, but took it seriously, they may have actually gotten somewhere. As it is they stuff the wuhole universe into an imaginary speck. How clever.

It is only relevant to people like you who misunderstand scripture.

Impossible. Jesus referred to it. So does much of the New Testament, and the old testament. Can't be waved away.

So what? Jesus was a Jew. Of course he refered to The Old Testament. What does that have to do with your misunderstanding of it?

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, maybe I'll start a new thread: Official call for "different state" papers. Show us the data.

Only Adam could have written it, and if he did, God didn't preserve it.

What do you want from us --- a miracle?

Science says, "these are the observable facts, what should we conclude?" There is a big difference between the two. It is unfortunate you're unable to see that.

Oh, I see it perfectly.

You want data, pure and simple.

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time. I'm not interested in that history book you're reading, I want proof --- now --- or I want you to shut up about this myth of being some kind of 'alternate reality', or 'condensation from the sky', or 'being formed from the ground'.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time.

You also believe that Snowmen talk ? Fascinating...

 

[BananaSlug]

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time. I'm not interested in that history book you're reading, I want proof --- now --- or I want you to shut up about this myth of being some kind of 'alternate reality', or 'condensation from the sky', or 'being formed from the ground'.

That's when one snowman picks up some snow and melts it. It wouldn't be hard.

I for one have constantly asked dad to provide some scientific evidence for his "different state" past. He has refused to enter a formal debate with me for who knows why. If my arguments are so poor (as he claims) then he should easily wipe the floor with me, yet he doesn't.

Summary of the Age Dating Correlations Covered:

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 Pine: 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: The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Dunde Ice Core: The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Greenland Ice Cores: 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).
• Antarctica Ice Cores: 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).
• 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 climate data.
• 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).
• 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.
• Final Summary: the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. From "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes"(1):

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.​

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is normally very low compared to the amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 (both stable isotopes). From "The 14C Method"(7):

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%.​

This atmospheric carbon-14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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. From "Glossary: Beta Decay"(9):

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. The half-life of 5730 years for carbon-14 has a 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 curvefrom 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. The "age" is then calculated by a radioactive decay formula. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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.​

The age 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" - from "Extension of the radiocarbon calibration curve by AMS dating of laminated sediments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar"(8):

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.
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, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
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.
Enjoy.
References

1. Anonymous "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes" The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University Press. accessed 10 Jan 2007 carbon: Properties and Isotopes — Infoplease.com
2. Anonymous "Radiocarbon Dating" Wikipedia. updated 10 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Anonymous "Younger Dryas" Wikipedia. updated 30 Dec 2006. accessed 18 Jan 2007 from Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
5. Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
6. 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/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract)
7. Gagnon, Steve, "Glossary: Beta Decay" Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html
8. Higham, Thomas, "The 14C Method" Info Radiocarbon Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 The method
9. 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 http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf
10. 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 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS Readings/Reimer2004.pdf
11. Smith, Paul "Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud" razd.evcforum.net, Version 1, dated 14 Jan 2007, Accessed 15 Jan 2007 from Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud

Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.
So dad, what evidence do you actually have, or are you just going to wave this away too?

 

[BananaSlug]

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time. I'm not interested in that history book you're reading, I want proof --- now --- or I want you to shut up about this myth of being some kind of 'alternate reality', or 'condensation from the sky', or 'being formed from the ground'.

That's when one snowman picks up some snow and melts it. It wouldn't be hard.

I for one have constantly asked dad to provide some scientific evidence for his "different state" past. He has refused to enter a formal debate with me for who knows why. If my arguments are so poor (as he claims) then he should easily wipe the floor with me, yet he doesn't.

Summary of the Age Dating Correlations Covered:

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 Pine: 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: The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Dunde Ice Core: The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Greenland Ice Cores: 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).
• Antarctica Ice Cores: 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).
• 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 climate data.
• 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).
• 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.
• Final Summary: the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. From "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes"(1):

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.​

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is normally very low compared to the amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 (both stable isotopes). From "The 14C Method"(7):

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%.​

This atmospheric carbon-14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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. From "Glossary: Beta Decay"(9):

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. The half-life of 5730 years for carbon-14 has a 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 curvefrom 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. The "age" is then calculated by a radioactive decay formula. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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.​

The age 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" - from "Extension of the radiocarbon calibration curve by AMS dating of laminated sediments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar"(8):

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.
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, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
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.
Enjoy.
References

1. Anonymous "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes" The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University Press. accessed 10 Jan 2007 carbon: Properties and Isotopes — Infoplease.com
2. Anonymous "Radiocarbon Dating" Wikipedia. updated 10 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Anonymous "Younger Dryas" Wikipedia. updated 30 Dec 2006. accessed 18 Jan 2007 from Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
5. Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
6. 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/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract)
7. Gagnon, Steve, "Glossary: Beta Decay" Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Glossary Item - Beta Decay
8. Higham, Thomas, "The 14C Method" Info Radiocarbon Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
9. 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 http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf
10. 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 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS Readings/Reimer2004.pdf
11. Smith, Paul "Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud" razd.evcforum.net, Version 1, dated 14 Jan 2007, Accessed 15 Jan 2007 from http://razd.evcforum.net/dendrochronology.html

Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.
So dad, what evidence do you actually have, or are you just going to wave this away too?

 

[BananaSlug]

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time. I'm not interested in that history book you're reading, I want proof --- now --- or I want you to shut up about this myth of being some kind of 'alternate reality', or 'condensation from the sky', or 'being formed from the ground'.

That's when one snowman picks up some snow and melts it. It wouldn't be hard.

I for one have constantly asked dad to provide some scientific evidence for his "different state" past. He has refused to enter a formal debate with me for who knows why. If my arguments are so poor (as he claims) then he should easily wipe the floor with me, yet he doesn't.

Summary of the Age Dating Correlations Covered:

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 Pine: 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: The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Dunde Ice Core: The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Greenland Ice Cores: 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).
• Antarctica Ice Cores: 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).
• 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 climate data.
• 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).
• 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.
• Final Summary: the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. From "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes"(1):

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.​

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is normally very low compared to the amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 (both stable isotopes). From "The 14C Method"(7):

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%.​

This atmospheric carbon-14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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. From "Glossary: Beta Decay"(9):

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. The half-life of 5730 years for carbon-14 has a 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 curvefrom 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. The "age" is then calculated by a radioactive decay formula. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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.​

The age 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" - from "Extension of the radiocarbon calibration curve by AMS dating of laminated sediments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar"(8):

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.
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, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
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.
Enjoy.
References

1. Anonymous "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes" The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University Press. accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857174.html
2. Anonymous "Radiocarbon Dating" Wikipedia. updated 10 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Anonymous "Younger Dryas" Wikipedia. updated 30 Dec 2006. accessed 18 Jan 2007 from Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
5. Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable
6. 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/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract)
7. Gagnon, Steve, "Glossary: Beta Decay" Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Glossary Item - Beta Decay
8. Higham, Thomas, "The 14C Method" Info Radiocarbon Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
9. 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 http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf
10. 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 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS Readings/Reimer2004.pdf
11. Smith, Paul "Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud" razd.evcforum.net, Version 1, dated 14 Jan 2007, Accessed 15 Jan 2007 from Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud

Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.
So dad, what evidence do you actually have, or are you just going to wave this away too?

 

[BananaSlug]

That's like one snowman saying to another: I want you to provide me proof that we were water at one time. I'm not interested in that history book you're reading, I want proof --- now --- or I want you to shut up about this myth of being some kind of 'alternate reality', or 'condensation from the sky', or 'being formed from the ground'.

That's when one snowman would take some of his body and melt it. It wouldn't be hard.

I for one have constantly asked dad for evidence to support his "different state past" scenario. I've even invited him to a formal debate on the topic, yet he has refused to do so. I would think if my argument is so poor (as he claims) then he should have no problem mopping the floor with me.
The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. From "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes"(1):

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.​

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is normally very low compared to the amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 (both stable isotopes). From "The 14C Method"(7):

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%.​

This atmospheric carbon-14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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. From "Glossary: Beta Decay"(9):

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. The half-life of 5730 years for carbon-14 has a 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 curvefrom 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. The "age" is then calculated by a radioactive decay formula. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):

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.​

The age 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" - from "Extension of the radiocarbon calibration curve by AMS dating of laminated sediments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar"(8):

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.
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, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
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.
Enjoy.
References

1. Anonymous "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes" The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University Press. accessed 10 Jan 2007 carbon: Properties and Isotopes — Infoplease.com
2. Anonymous "Radiocarbon Dating" Wikipedia. updated 10 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Anonymous "Younger Dryas" Wikipedia. updated 30 Dec 2006. accessed 18 Jan 2007 from Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
5. Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
6. 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/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract)
7. Gagnon, Steve, "Glossary: Beta Decay" Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 Glossary Item - Beta Decay
8. Higham, Thomas, "The 14C Method" Info Radiocarbon Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 The method
9. 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 http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf
10. 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 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS Readings/Reimer2004.pdf
11. Smith, Paul "Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud" razd.evcforum.net, Version 1, dated 14 Jan 2007, Accessed 15 Jan 2007 from Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud

So dad, why does C14 dating correlate so well with dendrochronology? Will you provide evidence to back up your claim or will you simply wave this away as well? Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Great posts BananaSlug!

 

[AV1611VET]

What does any of that have to do with a different state past, Banana Slug?

This dendrochronology stuff --- I mean --- come on.

Not only does it have nothing to do with a different state past, what if a tree has 7000 rings one year, and 7050 the very next year?

And besides, how would you know?

Once you cut it down, it's dead, isn't it?

So it wouldn't even have a chance to grow another 50 rings in a year.

Isn't there a name for something like that in physics?

You can tell where an atom is, but then you can't tell how fast it's moving.

Or you can tell how fast it's moving, but you can't tell where it is.

Or something like that.

 

[Split Rock]

What does any of that have to do with a different state past, Banana Slug?

This dendrochronology stuff --- I mean --- come on.

Not only does it have nothing to do with a different state past, what if a tree has 7000 rings one year, and 7050 the very next year?

And besides, how would you know?

Once you cut it down, it's dead, isn't it?

So it wouldn't even have a chance to grow another 50 rings in a year.

Isn't there a name for something like that in physics?

You can tell where an atom is, but then you can't tell how fast it's moving.

Or you can tell how fast it's moving, but you can't tell where it is.

Or something like that.

Trees don't do that. They may be missing years, or more often have thinner rings if growth stops or is slow (respsectively), but it couldn't grow 50 rings in one year. There is such a thing as "false rings" (if I recall) but they are easily distinguished from growth rings. In dendrochronology, tree ring series are over lapped with each other to extend the dating range. Just as one can do this with aseries of letters that are broken in parts.

For example:

asdfghj
fghjklqwertyu
lqwertyuiop
yuiopzxcvbnm

can be put together to give: asdfghjklqwertyuiopzxcvbnm