Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:13 pm

back at ATomorrow.com starting in '02 at <a href="http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/243.html?1013224404" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/243.htm l?1013224404</a> we discussed much of the evidence for the age of the earth/universe, as it tended to impact the churches doctrinal beliefs largely inherited from Catholic Bishop Ussher's literal interpretation of geneologies in Genesis. This thread was formerly captioned under a Church Doctrine thread which bothered some people as tho posting evidence which disagreed with doctrine was unhelpful at best, and heretical at worst. This thread here might have been better placed under a title called.... the Bible and Science... or Church doctrines and Science. Misplacing it here under a title called Evolution and ID is the current only option, but it should have its own title as the answer to the question of the age of things is a first step to understanding what the title infers. I start the thread by bringing over from Atomorrow some of the original material, adjusting it for currency, and with my real name this time!!! last time my nom de plume of Joe Allen was to avoid encouraging an aging mother to fear that we would never meet again in that great beyond. Now that she is "there", I feel more free to explore the questions which in many of our pasts we may have been discouraged to ask. So what follows is partly my experience in learning about the "age of the earth", references to supporting material, and I hope that others feel free to participate in the discusion. A separate thread has also been started for "Evidence for a Young Earth" and related discussions, as well as "Evidence supporting evolution" and "Evidence to support Creationism" either way, it is my contention that one can support many of the valuable beliefs and ethics of Christianity either way.... and apparently the Pope agrees, seemingly reversing the RCC's past attempts to stifle any dissent with their past dogma. One wonders if the SDA Church will ever become similarly open to "new information". (Message edited by john8verse32 on January 24, 2009)

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:18 pm

This issue...the age of the earth... became a potential turning point in my life back in college at AUC as I was faced with the "young earth" story in one set of classes, but in the pre-med, math, science, and history classes I was running into school texts which explained the possibilities that the earth was much older than we had been taught. There were some wild theories, too!! Velikovsky comes to mind with planets careening around smashing into things. Von Danniken scared us with his alien theories! But in l957 Sputnik changed everything, and the International Geophysical Year sent out deep sea research vessels which startled the scientific world with the discovery of the mid Atlantic "rift" ridge, the alternating magnetic bands, and people started talking about Wegener's drifting continents theory. Then my math prof admitted that simple trigonometry could prove the huge distance in light years to distant sources, Bell labs scientists "heard" the background radiation, and my biology teacher assigned us to study the fossil forest in Yellowstone. Within a few years, I hiked into the Grand Canyon, dug mammoth tusks out of mud banks in Alaska, found a perfectly fossilized beach shell over 7000 feet up in the French Alps; all the foregoing without any evidence to be found of a "universal flood". The local minister's attempt to set the record "straight" backfired!! He took me to a field 5 miles from my home and showed me a rock balanced there on top of another rock, placed there by the flood he said!! "Unfortunately" for the paradigm, the rock was, like many in our formerly glacier covered area, so delicately balanced there, that no moving flood waters could have stood it that way!! while a melting glacier could have done just what we saw. Then I saw the scour marks in the bedrock of Central Park, lined up pointing up the Hudson River toward Labrador where the glacier had ground its way from. Then from the air, I could see the peninsula of Cape Cod, or Long Island for what they were: bulldozed sand piles lined up perpendicular to the farthest south advances of the last glacier. Then on Mt Monadnock, in S. New Hampshire, I saw the glacial striatians ground into the bedrock almost at the 3000 ft summit, pointing south to Central Park and back to Labrador. Next, to duplicate my experience, sign yourself up for Discovery Magazine, Nat. Geographic Mag, and the Discovery and Learning Channels on Cable. And of course, watch every "Nova" that PBS produces. Then surf over to TalkOrigins.org http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html and put it all together. But lets start our story here more gently than that with this thread!!!! (Message edited by john8verse32 on January 24, 2009)

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:35 pm

The age of the earth according to written history is only a few thousand years old, since language is supposed to have been invented barely 3000+ yrs BC.....prior to that, it was all word of mouth (as in the Bibles stories, or Mesopotamian myths, Greek Divinities, and other orally preserved history. So written history cannot take us past the 6000 year age for the earth we can derive from the KJV version of Genesis, or even the closer to 8,000 yr age which can be derived from the LXX. What else is there? should we believe that science can determine that they have found 250,000,000 yr old bacteria living in ancient salt deposits? <a href="http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm" target=_top>http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.ht m</a> are their easier to believe evidences for the age of the earth? maybe the Redwoods? the Sequoia's? some of the ancient ones may approach thousands of years of age. And in most cases, the soil they grow from looks like it resulted from older rock which has broken down over a prolonged time span to create the soils their roots can find sustanance in. So the potential is that long ages result from the combined age of the trees PLUS the land. But how much? These massive trees provided so much lumber that even naturally fallen behemoths were harvested, leaving little wood to compare and start a "dendrochronology". But the lowly, or should we say high placed (because they grow up to l0,000 feet high) "Bristlecone Pine Trees grow in the White Mts of Calif along the Nevada border just NW of Death valley. These short, stubby Bristlecone Pines grow starkly, and very slowly, against a dry environment, and produce well defined annual growth rings. In addition, due to their small size and remote location, they were never used for lumber if for occasional firewood. So not only are growing specimens available to be "cored" and dated, but there are also fallen trees, and old stumps, which can be used to create a near continuous linear time scale based on annual growth rings. The oldest of the trees approach 5,000 years, and in comparing the annular rings with dead wood found nearby, preserved by the dryness of the area, a 9,000+ year chronology has been obtained in such detail that they even use it to correct radio carbon dates. You can read about dendrochronology at: <a href="http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html" target=_top>http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html</a> So now we have gotten to 9,000 years of age, not much more than the LXX Bible also offers, so what? But don't forget, the age of the dirt, rocks, mountains and continent UNDER the Bristlecone pines!!! all that still has to be accounted for. And some literal creationists say that it was noah's flood which raised up the mts. If that is the case, and if one were to accept customary dating for the "flood" as about 3000 BC, then these trees are older than the mountains upon which they sit!!!! PBS has run an hour special about the pines: " Old as the hills, a bristlecone pine stands majestic on an exposed flank of California's White Mountains. Note: To protect its identity, neither this nor any other bristlecone shown in this article is the Methuselah Tree. A Tree's Secret to Living Long By Peter Tyson "It's hard enough to accept that a tree that was a seedling before the Egyptian Pyramids went up is still alive today, as is the case with the Methuselah Tree, a bristlecone pine more than 46 centuries old. But it's truly baffling to learn under what conditions it has accomplished this extraordinary feat. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/long.html" target=_top>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/long.html</a> I was fortunate to see some of the ancient trees personally back in nov. The 9-11 terror scared my daughter from going back to PUC on an airliner, so I did, and drove her stuff back via spectacular Lake Tahoe and the desert route to renew my experience with 5000 yr old trees, and multi billion yr old layers in the Grand Canyon. It is difficult to understand just how anybody, claiming both to be objective, honest, intelligent, and a creationist, can still keep their head buried in muddle-east sand and maintain that the earth is only 6000 yrs old. The Methusaleh tree has been core dated to over 4700 yrs itself, and it is still alive. A dead tree, "Prometheus", was cut down by mistake and a slice measured in a lab setting at over 5,000 yrs old. By comparing growth rings of more fallen deadwood, scientists have verified a "dendrochronology" going back over 9,000 years. For creationists who strain to suggest that the flood of Noah is responsible for the creation of the mountains, only 3-4000 yrs BC, this is an unsur"mount"able problem!!! Because here we have trees growing before there was a flood!!!! And growing in soil on top of mountains which are claimed to have been created during the flood, ie, AFTER the trees started growing. And growing in soil formed from the geologically slow decay of ancient volcanic material into sandy soils & gravels... (Message edited by john8verse32 on January 24, 2009)

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:40 pm

here are a few pictoral visits to the B-pines. <a href="http://www.goldengatephoto.com/WestUS/bristlecone.html" target=_top>http://www.goldengatephoto.com/WestUS/bristlecone. html</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine</a> <a href="http://www.cmdrmark.com/bristlecone.html" target=_top>http://www.cmdrmark.com/bristlecone.html</a>

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:46 pm

but in fact, the oldest living tree may actually be a bush!!!! a creosote bush!!!! over 11,000 yrs old!!! <a href="http://www.ourwindowonnature.com/2007/05/06/the-oldest-living-tree-is-a-bush/" target=_top>http://www.ourwindowonnature.com/2007/05/06/the-ol dest-living-tree-is-a-bush/</a> more pics and explanation and a tour here: <a href="http://www.lucernevalley.net/creosote/index.htm" target=_top>http://www.lucernevalley.net/creosote/index.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 4:54 pm

more interesting botanical record breakers!!!!! <a href="http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm" target=_top>http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 8:47 pm

so far we have 6 kilo-years in the KJV, 8 ky in the LXX, 5000 yr old Bristlecone pines, and 9000 or more worth of BPine dendrochronology. 11,700 yrs worth of Creosote Bush history.... what's next on our trek back in time? how 'bout a honeymoon at Niagra Falls? ok, lets ride the Queen of the Mist up the Niagara River Canyon up to the Falls!! Lets visit Niagara Falls at <a href="http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html" target=_top>http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html</a> and check out the geology and the erosion rates. If you study the Niagara Falls Geology website linked above, you should discover the following: The "gorge" that the river runs in below the falls is about 7 miles long, meaning the river has "cut" the gorge by the edge of the falls breaking off and the broken rocks being carried downriver as silt, resulting in the falls eroding their way back up the river over 7 miles from the edge of the escarpment where the falls started. If you scroll down in the linked web site to "Erosion", you will see a published rate of erosion of the falls in recorded history running maybe an average of one meter per year, and recently being less due to diversion of over half of the water itself for hydropower. 7 miles of river gorge cut by the falls, x 5,280ft/mile = 36,960 feet, which, divided by an average of three feet per year of upriver erosion, gives an estimate of l2,000+ years for the falls to work their way upriver to where they are today. Interestingly, there are two more measurements which confirm this age: River depth soundings show many stages of deep pools, where the falls stopped moving upriver for a time, and formed deep plunge pools whose age relative to the length of the gorge can be estimated, and not surprisingly, these dates coincide with understood melting and recession of the glaciation which caused the Great Lakes in the first place. As the Glaciers receded, they opened up new valleys as river paths to/from the Great lakes, and at times there was enormous volumes of water going over the falls, hence a fast upriver erosion rate and shallow plunge pools as the falls did not stay in one place long enough to "dig out" a deep pool. While at other times the glaciers blocked rivers, or the rivers actually went down the mississippi/ohio drainage instead of over Niagara, resulting in lesser volumes of water in the river, therefore slowing upriver erosion, with the falls "stuck" in one place, causing the deep plunge pools to be dug out over a longer time. And C-l4 dating of fresh water shells at various steps up the gorge provide a third way to date the upriver progression of the falls. And guess what? the methods converge on similar dates and ages. So here we have about l2,000+ years of earth history scientifically confirmed, AFTER the most recent set of glaciers started melting!!!!!!!! So what, l2,000 years is only a little more than 6,000-8,000 yrs you say? You choose to stay married to "young concepts" until something more attractive comes along? But here is where the Young Earth Honeymoon at Niagara ends and the divorce starts looking necessary: the river gorge cuts through alternating layers of sandstone, mudstone, shale, AND LIMESTONE which results from the DEATH & accumulation of giga-billions of tiny, marine animals and the cementing of their shells and bodies into rock. The land had to be underwater a very long time ago and for an extremely long time period for the deposition of the dead animals to accumulate into the layers which became limestone. Above and below are other layers indicating deposition of muds, or wind blown sands sometimes above, sometimes below water level. So If God created the tiny sea animals, and sacrificed them by the giga-billions to create limestone, that brings up two further questions: How long ago? And why kill animals however tiny just to make rock? The sedimentary rocks that the falls cut their way through are dated at 200-400 million years. Isn't that OLD ENOUGH to question the concept of a "young earth"?? Since the limestone layers are partly composed up of dead animals, doesn't this prove there was life on this planet millions of years ago. And multi-billions of these little live marine animals were killed off somehow to make limestone layers under an ocean. Then it took eons for all the layers to be compressed by more mud and sand and limestone layers to be formed above, finally becoming rock; then it took time for the layers to be elevated above sea level. Then it took time for the escarpment to be formed by erosion. Then it took time for the glaciers to form, advance, retreat, melt,(This is where the 12,000 yrs comes in) and the outwash (the Niagara River)took thousands of years to cut down through the sedimentary layers. The problem here is not just the 12,000 yrs of erosion which now exceeds the 6-8,000 yr Biblical time limit: it is the fact that even if one accepts an ancient earth, and ancient universe, but still tries to premise a RECENT LIFE, then one is faced with gigabillions of dead sea animals which were once life, possibly millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, and which became compressed into LIMESTONE. So creationists have to carefully redefine the definition of "RECENT" or of "LIFE". Little sea animals don't count? Or the fossilized larger sea animals contained in the layers either? or is 200 million years still "recent" compared to 4.55 billion? The next problem I personally have with this "recent life" scenario, in addition to the timing problem of "death before sin", is why would an all powerful Creator massacre gigabillions of live animals that He has created to become rock, when He could have satisfied Himself with more layers of sandstone, or mudstone, or hot lava intrusions of granitic igneous layers? Why would a loving God,Creator of all life, including the tiny sea animals, massacre them by the giga-billions when he could have used more minerals to create rock? Just how long the Honeymoon with the hoped for "recent life" option will survive an eye opening visit to Niagara Falls is therefore in question. however, fundamental Bible believers still try to claim that the Falls took much less time to erode its way up stream, because all the water from noah's Flood would have eroded the falls at a faster rate!!! Answers in Genesis gives both the traditional view from the scientific evidence, as well as the "belief" that Noah's Flood changed everything, making the Falls occur in only the last 3500 yrs. <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/niagara-falls" target=_top>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/niaga ra-falls</a> of course they fail to take into account the changing rates of erosion as calculated by the differing depths of the plunge pools, and they completely skip the radio carbon dating of fresh water mollusks along the length of the river channel. And, naturally, their explanation totally depends on Noah's Flood for which conventional science cannot find any real valid evidence!!! In the end, they complely (and deliberately?)forget to address the hundreds of million year age of the underlying sedimentary strata thru which the ralls cut their way upstream. more "traditional" explanations: <a href="http://www.niagarafallsstatepark.com/History_FormationDiscovery.aspx" target=_top>http://www.niagarafallsstatepark.com/History_Forma tionDiscovery.aspx</a> <a href="http://www.infoniagara.com/other/history/geo.html" target=_top>http://www.infoniagara.com/other/history/geo.html</a> <a href="http://niagara.foundlocally.com/Local/Info-CityHistoryGeology.htm" target=_top>http://niagara.foundlocally.com/Local/Info-CityHis toryGeology.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 9:16 pm

Next let's visit the south coast of France, near Marseille. nice and warm this time of year. Lets go scuba diving with the French Ministry of Culture: <a href="http://www.culture.fr/culture/archeosm/fr/cosq.htm" target=_top>http://www.culture.fr/culture/archeosm/fr/cosq.htm</a> en francais: zee paintures paleo-antiques een zee grotte have been , how you say, "dated" with zee methode radio-charbon, en addition, avec zee dating "comparison" to zee grottes similars at LasCaux. go to the Anglais page: <a href="http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/cosq.htm" target=_top>http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/cosq.htm</a> note that the entrance to the grotto is over l00 feet below todays level of the Med. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/249.jpg" alt=""> Yet, somehow, somebody got into that cave, with ladders and buckets of paint, and coleman lanterns and blew or slapped pictures on the walls, of their hands, which has been c-l4 dated to 27k yrs, and of animals long extinct c-l4 dated to 15-17 kyrs at the youngest. And the younger animals (esp the bison) look remarkably similar to those painted around the same dates in other caves in France and Spain. And they killed off their buffalo long before we did. This absolutely stunned me when I was still a YEC,(young-earth creationist) because after the flood of Noah, the water was supposed to go down. Here it clearly has come up and covered the entrance to the cave after the paleo artists did their thing. Other scientists are actually looking at the paleo-pix as star maps, and finding patterns which strongly suggest star groupings as they were l5 -30 thousand years ago at the time of the paintings!! So here we have a human phenom that can be dated several ways: the radio carbonl4 way; the astronomical way; the comparative way, against other paintings, comparing style, materials, etc of other "cave paintings and their estimated dates from other geological means (as well as R/C dating of wood, charcoal, etc of other caves). And finally the animals can be compared on the basis of the decreasing liklihood of their being painted AFTER they have gone extinct which has been determined from relative stratigraphic methods. so carbon dating in this instance is compared with many other methods. Carbon dating is actually old stuff now!! the "meshweb" of science offers many other methods of dating, or corraborating an RC date. The amazing way they can double, triple, quadruple verify their data via new methods is astounding: Epiphany of epiphanies!! the paleo paintings can be dated by a new measuring schtick: a meshweb of research around the earth by Noaa (no, not THE ARK guy; this dot.gov outfit: ............<a href="ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov........" target=_top>ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov........</a>. where you can download world wide paleo ocean levels determined by a multitude of means, including corals, satellite data, direct measurement, etc. This latest info is based on the northern glaciers having taken up so much water around 20,000 years ago that the oceans were as much as 400 feet lower than today. So a cave exposed on the seacoast could be a great home to paleo painters. Then the earth wobbled more toward the sun in its Milankovitch Cycle, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles</a> warming up enuf to start melting glaciers, and raising ocean levels. All this has been documented by several methods. here's a graph showing sea level rise around the world on average. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/250.jpg" alt=""> The data for the south coast of France, however, is different due to the isostatic rebound of the European continent after the melting of the glaciers. The data shows the following paleo sea levels averaged from two sites near Marseille, not far from the Cosquer Grotto: 5,000 yrs ago, the sea was 3 meters lower than today; 6k ago, level was -5 meters. Note: they are presently pulling up Cleopatras artifacts from under l0-l5 feet of water in the harbor at Alexandria!! (which is sinking under millions of tons annually of Nile sediment as well as the water rising) 7kyr ago, -9m, and a big jump!! 8000 yrs ago, minus 20 meters!!! The black sea flood is dated by Pitman/Ryan & Ballard by separate samples at about 7200 yrs ago, during the rapid rise in ocean levels due to the quick melting of the glaciers. during this l000 yrs, between 7 and 8k yrs ago, the oceans rose by over 33 feet and probably overtopped whatever shallow pass in the bosphorus valley was holding back the Med and ultimately the oceans of the world chased Noah & Co. onto rafts and into the Mts of Uratu!! approx 10,000 yrs ago the French data gives the oceans at 33 meters below present, which gets us down close to the entrance to the cave. Isn't it interesting that the "meshweb" of evidence does not include any dates younger than 15-17k yr's from inside the cave? The access/entrance went under water somewhere close to that time!!! and has sealed in the evidence ever since. And would have made further painting by snorkel in the dark more dificult. Maybe the Neanderthals that did the painting were the Nethphilim giants of old testament lore. Unless, of course, your paradigm requires that you "SCRAP" this evidence because it disagrees with your religious belief, and then how would you explain it? God (or Jacques Cousteau) faked it years ago, using paint which would appear as ancient, and painting animals which went extinct thousands of years ago, all this to mislead heretics and frenchmen to keep them out of the Kingdom? does God want to exclude those who ask too many questions? doesn't He have the answers? Then around 13,000 yrs ago, the NOAA world wide average chart shows the oceans at minus 90 meters, that's almost 300 feet below present sea level. A few more years back at this rate and we expose the Bering land bridge and may explain why Eskimos look and sound identical on either side of the straits!! And why American Indians have the same high cheek bones and scant beards and slit eyes ("micro -evolutionary" adjustment to bright sunlight on the snow? as many Asians. It may explain the flooding of whatever Atlantis was. It does explain the underwater river channels going way out to sea cut into the contenintal shelves. Look at Bob Ballard's soundings of the Black sea showing under water river cuts, under water ancient beaches and promentories and stream valleys. And the melting glaciers slowly flooding the oceans gently deposited their conveyored cargo of NH. white and rose quartz rock boulders, rounded like gravels, onto our completely different bedrock here in southern new england, leaving some of them so delicately balanced that a strong two armed push might bowl them over. The rushing, receeding waters of Noah's flood might have ripped them from the mountain tops, but could not have set them down so gently with pin pointbalance!! And no flood would have left glacial striations in the rock, always pointing back to Labrador! Look at a map of the Finger Lakes in upstate NY, or the Hudson River valley: they are direct eyewitness testimony pointing to where the glaciers came from. And Sandy Hook , NJ, and fire Island, and old Cape cod are evidences where different glacial advances stopped pushing and left sand berms behind after melting back. The rising oceans finally overtopped the Bering Land Bridge, and probably suddenly changed the climate of the North freezing up the Mammoths, the latest survivors barely hanging onto Wrangell island, where the relatively warmer sea still kept them from freezing to death in the winter a while longer. There are so many interconnected answers in science, based on real, direct evidence, which is repeatable and verifiable. But you have got to overlook the 6-8000 year limit!!!!! and multiple methods of dating put the paleo-paintings inside Cosquers Grotto at 15-17 years before present at the youngest, and close to 30ky ago for the oldest!!! (Message edited by john8verse32 on January 24, 2009)

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 9:45 pm

next problem for young earthers!!!! the cliffs in which the Cosquer Grotto is found are composed of LIMESTONE!!!!! that's why there is a cave to begin with. Limestone is very easily etched away by even dilute acids... and CO2 in the atmosphere can combine with rainwter to make carbonic acid, which can eat away at limestone and make caves!!! But the real question for young earth geology, is how did the limestone get there in the first place? traditional geology teaches that at one time, millions of years ago, the land was under water, and giga beyons and beyons of tiny marine animals died, drifted to the bottom, formed an "ooze" in which their skeletons and shells became cemented together, then hardened as more layers were laid down on top. Eventually, tectonic forces withing the earth, raised up the limestone layers above ocean level, and only then did the acid rain start the process of cave formation. later, changing climates started melting glaciers, raising ocean levels, covering the entrance to the cave in which the paleo peinteurs had created their prehistoric art showing now extinct animals. so the 15-30,000 year age of the paintings inside the grotto pales in comparison to the age of the limestone itself!!! the white cliffs of Calais and Dover are also limestone, from an era millions of years ago.... just don't leap to unwanted conclusions without your parachute of scientific understanding!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/253.jpg" alt="">

john8verse32 · 01-27-09 8:31 pm

so far, the ancient dates we are able to go back to: 6000 yrs from the KJV 8000 or so from the LXX 5000 yrs from living Bristlecone pines counting tree rings 9000 year dendrochronology from BPines by counting overlapping tree rings 11-12,000 year old Creosote Bush....by Radio Carbon dating... 15,-30,000 yr old paleo paintings of long extinct animals in Cosquers Cave...done by RC dating...AND sea level dating.... but... suppose you question the validity of Radio carbon dating?..... Wiki offers a reasonable explanation of how RC dating can be adjusted and confirmed with dendrochronology. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology</a> A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching a section against another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).[2][3] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[4] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[5] In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments. <a href="http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html" target=_top>http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html</a> is a Christian web site trying to proved the validity of the Bible...but in an old earth way!!! they have quite a nice exposition on "varves" and how they can be used in dating the past. Specifically in a lake in japan in which the annual layers..varves...have been calibrated by simply counting them and Radio Carbon dating pollen in each layer by "14C" back some 40,000 yrs. One of the products of the continuing cycles of the seasons can be found on the bottoms of some lakes. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one-cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer. The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, thin layers of microscopic algae have been piling up for many years. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm per yr for present conditions in Lake Suigetsu which is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan. Recently scientists took a 75-m long continuous core from the center of the lake for close analysis including AMS 14C measurements on more than 250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments...... The combined 14C and varve chronologies from Lake Suigetsu are used to calibrate the 14C time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration. Figure 2 shows an atmospheric 14C calibration for the complete 14C dating range (less than 45 ka) thats 45,000 yrs!!! The tree-ring calibration range, our calibration agrees well with the European sediments (3) and generally with marine calibrations obtained by combined U/Th and 14C dating of corals (4,5). ... The results from just one source could possibly be readily contested, but in this case the scientists have correlated the results from multiple sources including that of Lake Gosciaz (Poland), German oak and pine tree ring chronologies and also calibrations from coral data. Many in the scientific community are proposing the result of the above study as a "calibration" to radiometric C14 data, see Appendix A. Also the data seems to indicate no more that a 16.7 percent error due to deviation of C14 in the atmosphere for the past 40,000 years. Conclusion: The apparent close correlation of the dating results from multiple sources appears to be strong evidence for an earth much older than 10,000 years! And evidence that properly conducted C14 radiometric dating can approach reasonable accuracy, possibly within better than 10 percent. a new calibration data set from Lake Suigetsu, Japan, is now available back to ca. 40,000 years before present(Kitagawa & van der Plicht, 1998). This chronology is based on AMS dates of terrestrial plant material from annually laminated lake sediments (see Radiocarbon 40, 1998, and the calibration issue of Radiocarbon to be published in late 1998). } so Radio Dating and Dendrochronology and Varve studies support the old age of things...up to about 40,000 years before present. (Message edited by john8verse32 on January 27, 2009)

john8verse32 · 01-27-09 8:37 pm

still unsure about Radio carbon dating? here is an easy to understand explanation. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Station/8985/rad.htm" target=_top>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Station/898 5/rad.htm</a> Scientists like RC dating, the RCC does not!! especially after the Shroud of Tourin was RC dated back to 11-1200 AD, making it a mid-evil forgery, designed to bring the faithful and their money to church. Fundamentalists also try to find any tiny error they can in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the process. They even resort to saying things like..."RC Dates of these rocks are all wrong"!!! while failing to understand that most rocks are older than RC dating can go, and most rocks do not contain carbon to date!! So keep in mind that RC dating is for fairly young things, out to about 50,000 years at most. And the farther out, the greater the variability. But if a piece of charcoal found in a firepit is dated at 15,000 years, most archeologists believe they would have a human site anywhere from 13-17,000 years old. Insterstingly, there is a way to refine firepit dating: the same heat which turns wood to coals, "melts" the iron in clay, allowing the iron to align itself with magnetic north. So if the coal which was dated was also properly "positioned" while selecting it from the dig site, there are tables of magnetic inclines, reversals, and relative strengths which can be consulted to corraborate the RC date of the firepit!!! especially for the US SouthWest where much research has been done into early American Native populations. The chief thing to remember about RC dating is that one must have a sample of a carbon based material, such as wood or other plant material, which was once growing, and reached equilibrium of its C-12 and C14. But upon being cut down, death, or decay, the c-14 decays radioactivly over a known "half-life" which can be used to determine how long the sample has been dead, ie, how long since it last was breathing in a mix of c-12 and c-14. C-14 dating is almost never assumed to be exact, and is usually given in a range of years. Thus it is a guide to the age of an item, which is usually dated in some additional way as explained in a previous post before science accepts the dating as accurate.

john8verse32 · 01-27-09 9:49 pm

Back at AUC in the 60's, we were just beginning to hear about "Specimen Ridge" in Yellowstone National Park. Harold Coffin, an SDA "geologist" was apparently claiming that Noah's Flood had caused this interesting phenomenom. My biology teacher challenged us to find out for ourselves!!! so I did..hitch hiked there (but due to time constraints only got to view it thru binoculars. Here is Coffin's explanation: <a href="http://www.grisda.org/origins/24005article.pdf" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/origins/24005article.pdf</a> coffins article and again as reported by the SDA Geological REsearch Institute started by the SDA church to justify the belief in a young earth (and the 7th day sabbath) <a href="http://www.grisda.org/origins/06071.htm" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/origins/06071.htm</a> The Yellowstone Petrified Forests The most striking feature of the petrified trees found in Yellowstone National Park is the erect position of many of the stumps. Without doubt, this is the strongest argument for the trees being in situ. At least 48 superimposed forests have been counted. Growth of this many successive forests one above another would require a minimum of 15,000 years. This estimate is based on 300 rings as an average size of the oldest tree for each level, a conservative figure derived from the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest at Yellowstone Park. Dorf allowed 200 years for the commencement of reforestation and 500 years as average largest tree size for each level.6 For 27 levels in the Fossil Forest area, he gave an approximate figure of 20,000 years. Using these calculations, the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest, with more than twice as many tree levels, would require more than 40,000 years. The cliffs and slopes where the petrified trees are exposed represent erosion of more than 1,200 vertical meters (3,400 ft.). By normal geological processes this much erosion could actually represent a more severe time problem than the growth of the trees. here are some photos for you to take your own cyber visit: <a href="http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/geology/paleontology/Page.htm" target=_top>http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/geology/ paleontology/Page.htm</a> slideshow you get there via the NE entrance to the park, along the Lamar River.... one crosses the river plain toward the South, dodging Elk and Grizzlies, one climbs up several thousand feet of hillside which has been eroded over the eons by the river. There have been 27 different layers depicted in this area, and as many as 50 layers nearby. You see these huge, petrified redwoods standing like the day the were growing there. Roots into the soil, trees standing upright. then you hike up a few feet, and see another tree standing there, higher than the first, and obviously growing from a higher, therefore a more recent layer. Scientists tell us that 50,000,000 (that's million!!! measured by radiological methods)years ago, give or take a few, the Yellowstone Caldera was erupting regularly. The volcanic ash and mud flows would bury a forest growing on the plain nearby, up to l0-25 feet high. The tree tops would decay, forming a shallow layer of new soil, and a new forest would start growing, while rains would transport minerals from the volcanic ash into the cellular structure of the buried, but still standing tree stumps, thereby petrifying them. There are upwards of 50 layers, with trees of 300 years old or more, and counting maybe 200 yrs between eruptions, to allow for decay of the upper part of the forest to provide new soil in which the new forest could grow, one can easily visualize 25,000 yrs or more worth of petrified tree rings, stacked on top of each other. This is a hike no Young Earth Creationist should miss if they want to find out the honest truth about earth history. Ron Numbers, the former SDA writer/historian saw it, and promtly realized he had been fooled all along by his beliefs. But Harold Coffin, SDA "geologist", a generation back analyzed the fosil forest, and in an effort to support a young earth perspective for his SDA church, wrote extensively about how the tree trunks could have been transported there, like Mt St Helens, root ball and trunk together, and deposited there perfectly upright!! If you go see both Spirit Lake below Mt St helens, and Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone, you will see the futility and folly of this logic: the stumps transported into Spirit lake are rarely upright, and the "trees" on top of the stumps are barely a few feet tall, and resting where they were transported at odd angles, rarely straight upright. However, even Coffin admits that up to 75% of the trees he observed in many sites in Yellowstone were perfectly upright, with some of them over 20 feet tall!!!! I have a photo of one close to 50 feet tall!!!! Not possible to have been "transported" and redeposited in this perfectly upright position!!!! Yet, true to his SDA Young Earth Creationism heritage, the findings were skewed to support a "transported in" method of explanation. Every other rational scientist takes the traditional view. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html" target=_top>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html</a> You will too, if you only go and see these petrified trees "in situ". "Answers in Genesis", annother YEC web resource, laments the fact that Ron Numbers, noted SDA historian, went to the Fossil Forest, which changed his life!!! <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp" target=_top>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp</a> quote: One historian of science, Ronald Numbers, placed his faith in fallible human theories about the past, and used this as an excuse to apostatize (fall away from his professed faith). As he said in his book on the history of creationism,11 a supposedly objective study:12 ‘I vividly remember the evening I attended an illustrated lecture on the famous sequence of fossil forests in Yellowstone National Park and then stayed up most of the night … agonizing over, then accepting, the disturbing likelihood that the earth was at least thirty thousand years old. Having thus decided to follow science rather than Scripture on the subject of origins, I quickly, though not painlessly, slid down the proverbial slippery slope toward unbelief.’ This Institute for Creation Research group supports the Coffin thesis in the floods transport of the trees into their places, all 50 layers of them!!! many over 20 feet tall, standing perfectly upright, with their roots apparently growing in the soil under them!!! <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-268.htm" target=_top>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-268.htm</a> but this scientific response, decries the attempts to portray these fossil trees as other than the way scientists explain them. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html" target=_top>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellows tone.html</a> "Yellowstone National Park (U.S.) Fossil Forests Some literature and other presentations claim the stacked "fossil forests" in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, United States, do not represent separate, successional forest development. For example, Steve Austin makes this claim in a video tape available from the ICR. Rather than being buried in place, it is claimed that these stumps are transported, and therefore they could be deposited in a short time, rather than the long time it would take for growth of a forest, burial, and growth and burial of each of the succeeding forests. This claim is NOT supported by the evidence. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place (see Fritz, 1980 and the citations in Fritz, 1984, quoted below). The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps. Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common). Distinguishing the two (or even recognizing the presence of both) is not difficult. To simply say, "tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed", is incorrect. The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport." -------------------------------------------- So here we have 25,000 plus years of tree rings, "stacked" on top of each other, with reasonable scientific explanation . Or you can choose to believe the "transport" theory, which cannot explain why so many of the trees are perfectly upright. And then you can start studying the Yellowstone Caldera, and find out that geologists have evidence of it having erupted approx. every 600,000 yrs, and the last time it blew, was well about 640,000 yrs ago!!! So it could be due soon!!!!! You can even see its past tracks as you go West from Yellowstone, thru Craters of the Moon, and past the Snake and Columbia Rivers where the N. American Continent drifted west over the Yelowstone Caldera hotspot, burning the surface of NW America as it passed over the hotspot. But heres the biggest problem for young earth beliefs: you have to take the 25,000 years of petrified tree rings, and ADD them to millions of years of earth history!!!!!!

john8verse32 · 06-19-09 9:44 pm

many of us grew up believing the Ussher chronology,where he calculated Creation to Oct 23, 4004 BC..... and once we found out that there was much evidence showing the earth far older than that, it was painful to try to coordinate what we hadbelieved with what we were being shown by science. I missed this presentation back in 1974....it would have helped to know this information back then....but all along the church seems to have hidden things which it did not want us to know. The irony is that the presenter of this astounding info was none other than the Pres of my college, Atlantic Union.... Larry Geraty. Dr Geraty had worked summers on archeological digs in Israel and Jordan, specializing in Jericho..... when years later I found out he had believed all along that Jericho showed evidence of human habitation for at least the last 10,000yrs, I was stunned.... but gratified that this seemed the church might be heading in the right direction...to align our ancient beliefs with what science was now showing us. When DrGeraty was "called" to be Pres of LaSierra College, where I had also attended, I was not surprised to find that another acquaintance of my family, a Larry mcClosky, another AUC grad, had been hired there as a biology prof.... only now do I understand what was in fact happening...after reading about how LSUniversity has been accused of presenting evolution and the ancient age of the earth as moreor less the right thing to believe. Prior to their moving west, I had enjoyed short conversations with both Larrys, and was puzzled by how little they wanted to answer my questions about the age of the earth.... they may have believed what science says, but were reluctant to admit it, at least to me, who had always had the rep of being a traditional believer. here is the link to the speech given by Dr Geraty back in 1974 which might have helped me slow my slide down the path away from being a YEC to becoming an agnostic...mostly because of the church dogma about the young age of the earth which has long ago been disproven by science, archeology, history, etc....and here the Bible itself can be interpreted to allow for thousands of extra years.... which is helpful to extend the "flood" back before the pyramids, which of course do not show any evidence of Noah's flood!!! <a href="http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/6-1geraty.pdf" target=_top>http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive0 6-10/6-1geraty.pdf</a> its worth the long read to understand that even back in '74, "believers' were being withheld the evidence that higher ups in the church knew, but didn't always tell us.

bob_2 · 06-20-09 10:31 am

Notice footnote #21 on Geraty's piece: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:As scientists and archaeologists debate the interpretation of their data, however, it seems clear that as yet they can make no definitive estimate of this time period either...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> The last part of the footnote was unclear to me, so I left it off for others to clarify.

bob_2 · 06-20-09 10:34 am

That footnote is as true today as in 1974. Ussher is one person estimating that period.

john8verse32 · 06-20-09 11:47 am

Bob missed the last paragraph in Geratys piece which says that the Bible does NOT support the claim the earth is only 6kyo..... and that we do not know from the bible the time between the earths geological formation (from the "void") and the creation of life.... it is this unknown time period for which the bible gives us no information according to the Geraty piece... unfortunately for this effort to merge the bible with science the existance of limestone provides a proof in the wrong direction for young earth creationism. and the footnote only serves to confirm that we will have to leave it up to science and history to fill in this period for us, since it cannot be determined from the Bible. that is a "believers" way of explaining things, within the possible use of scripture. the real scientific way to explain things is to accept scientific explanations when they can be verified by the evidence, and understand the Bible, at least the ancient parts thereof, to have been written by scientifically ignorant goa...ah, nomads who were retelling what they had heard about their ancestors explanations. so the quote Bob takes out of context refers to the prolonged but as yet unknows time period which believers in both the bible and in science would like to put there in order to accept the evidence of both.

bob_2 · 06-20-09 3:33 pm

HOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNK!!! Wrong answer. Footnote 21 is part of the last paragraph, and that last paragraph says the argument about 6000 years is an illusion. Geraty does not say whether it is true or false, but an illusion, .... (that maybe will be cleared up some day),

john8verse32 · 06-20-09 9:42 pm

here is the dichotomy which may not be able to be solved without embracing one side and letting go of the other. there are parts of the Bible we like ...the beatitudes ...love, joy and peace ...the resurrection ...and the hope of a heaven and there are parts of the Bible which actually do mesh with history and archeology...mostly the later parts. But then there's Moses books...Genesis with its ancient stories, Exodus with its unproven 40 yr million man schlep lost in the desert without leaving behind any evidence...there's Leviticus and Deut with strange rules most of which we choose to reject today.... and a horrible story in Numbers which if true, makes the hebrew "loving God" out to be the commander of a mass murder...and enabler of sexual slavery. Quote from the Contemporary English Version of Numb 31:7 The Israelites fought against the Midianites, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. They killed all the men, 8 including Balaam son of Beor and the five Midianite kings, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba. 9 The Israelites captured every woman and child, then led away the Midianites' cattle and sheep, and took everything else that belonged to them. 10 They also burned down the Midianite towns and villages. 11 Israel's soldiers gathered together everything they had taken from the Midianites, including the captives and the animals. 12 13 Then they returned to their own camp in the hills of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho, where Moses, Eleazar, and the other Israelite leaders met the troops outside camp. 14 Moses became angry with the army commanders 15 and said, ....."I can't believe you let the women live! 16 They are the ones who followed Balaam's advice and invited our people to worship the god Baal-Peor. That's why the LORD punished us by..... killing so many of our people. so, heres the part where the hebrew God is said to do what Hitler or Stalin or Milosovitch would later command or encourage their troups to do, for which they would be excoriated by humanity: 17 You must put to death every boy and all the women who have ever had sex. 18 But do not kill the young women who have never had sex. You may keep them for yourselves." personally, I find that command of the Lord reprehensible, and I wonder why anybody should bow down and worship such a tyrant. Even Bill Clinton whose off the record sexcapades titillated us some yrs ago, at least Bill sent in the USAF to bomb Milosovitch and his Christian Serb troupes who were doing just that to Moslem Croats...including killing all the men and boys, and raping the women. We opposed such inhuman action then, why do we worship a God who commanded the same thing be done by his fave tribe of nomads to another tribe?....out of jealousy? because the other tribe had convinced a few women to "worship" their god, Peor? instead of the hebrews God? why is this God so insecure that he has to put people to death who do not "worship" Him? if he is the all-being, the omni-everything ONE...why does he feel such a need to be worshiped? so here is the problem: ...If one believes that the books of Genesis and Exodus are to be taken literally, as historical, inerrant stories, and if we fail to believe them, and if this same "loving God" is gonna kill us.... then we should believe the far fetched stories of creation only a few thousand yrs ago... And we should take in faith the tale of Noah's flood, even tho it never affected the nearby pyramids. However....if, and that is a giant leap (of non faith)...if we want to worship a loving god, then I cannot understand how we can accept some of the ancient stories literally.... ...God being sorry he made people, so He decides to kill them all? even innocent animals!!!! ...God trying to influence the Pharoah by killing everybody elses kids? instead of simply torturing the pharoah personally? ...Elisha wants a sign that he has the powers of a prophet, so our loving God sends bears to kill "42" kids? so many of these old tales are not just incredulous, but also fly in the face of common human morality.... therefore.... the only way to understand much of the Old Test is as a collection of stories, some maybe with a nugget of fact, but often exaggerated with the continual telling and retelling of the stories around the campfire, until the stories got written down as the hebrews learned to read and write as captives in Babylon...where they may have borrowed even more ancient campfire stories from their captors, and adapted and adopted them into their family biography...the Old Test. only by so interpreting the OT, can you try to resurrect a "loving God" worthy of worship.... God didn't do all that stuff!!!!! but the superstitious Hebrews thought that everything that happened to them was from God!!! If they died of plague? or drought? or wars or pestilence, they believed it was because they did not worship their God correctly. If they prevailed over their neighbors, and wanted to keep the virgins, they wrote it down that their God had told them to do so. And on one occasion, when the battle dragged on until well after sundown, they claimed that their God had stopped the sun in its daily track around the earth just for them.... doesn't it stretch all credulity to believe that a loving god, worthy of worship, would actually overcome the laws of the universe, to give one tribe more daylight to kill another tribe? Especially when we now know that its the earth which goes round the sun...and not as depicted in the Bible. seeing all those ancient stories as just that... ancient stories, myths, legends, maybe some with a basis in fact (the oceans have come up over the last 20,000 yrs...flooding coastal areas, which might be the basis for all the flood stories around the world), but reinterpreting the Old Test in this way does not need to negate all the good stuff in the new Test, and the new understandings would have the added advantage of being able to mesh with science instead of forcing people to choose between the dichotomy of faith in the unproven and unseen, and the revelations of science. and this means that the tales of creation in 144 hrs, and 40 days of rain covering Mt Everest no longer need to be defended.... then we can get on with the science of understanding how everything works, and we can continue the spiritual growth which the ancients story shows us began with Adam and Eves legendary search for knowledge...

bob_2 · 06-21-09 12:38 am

So, like Jefferson, one of our favored presidents, you would like to dismantle the Bible. In Thomas's case, he took all the miracles and any conversation with someone living in the sky out of the book and called it the Jefferson Bible. What would you call yours, "The Alfke Acts"??? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

john8verse32 · 06-21-09 11:09 am

check out the Accuracy in Genesis web site... especially the links about the age of the earth... great explanation about how volcanoes show the great age of the earth... and varves? a lake in japan is highlighted which has been core sampled for varves...layers deposited....which goe back 40,000 yrs and is used to confirm and adjust carbon 14 methods of dating <a href="http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html" target=_top>http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html</a>

bob_2 · 06-21-09 8:37 pm

John note this interesting quote about dating flaws: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Carbon Dating - The Controversy Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio). And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176) <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm" target=_top>http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.h tm</a>

john8verse32 · 06-21-09 10:42 pm

on the same web site.... the 40,000 years of varves in this lake have been used to calibrate RC dating back to almost that long.... <a href="http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html" target=_top>http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html</a> and bristlecone pine rings have likewise confirmed the relative accuracy of RC dating back almost 10,000 yrs.... but Walt Brown, who is an avowed YEC, would not tell you that.

bob_2 · 06-21-09 11:26 pm

Bristlecones have their own inaccuracies, but you knew that, didn't you? Funny how those that oppose your "deep time" scenarios, do usually fall on the YEC side. Is that OK to be consistent?

elaine · 06-22-09 3:24 pm

Bob learned to "cut and paste" in kindergarten. Thinking was not taught.

bob_2 · 06-22-09 7:50 pm

Ditto on the A++. Turn the hearing aid up and answer the question when you can hear it. Maybe Neal can help you out since you seem to peer up together so much.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 01-24-09 4:13 pm

Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#2 01-24-09 4:18 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#3 01-24-09 4:35 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#4 01-24-09 4:40 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#5 01-24-09 4:46 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#6 01-24-09 4:54 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#7 01-24-09 8:47 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#8 01-24-09 9:16 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#9 01-24-09 9:45 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#10 01-27-09 8:31 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#11 01-27-09 8:37 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#12 01-27-09 9:49 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#13 06-19-09 9:44 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#14 06-20-09 10:31 am

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#15 06-20-09 10:34 am

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#16 06-20-09 11:47 am

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#17 06-20-09 3:33 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#18 06-20-09 9:42 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#19 06-21-09 12:38 am

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#20 06-21-09 11:09 am

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#21 06-21-09 8:37 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#22 06-21-09 10:42 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#23 06-21-09 11:26 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#24 06-22-09 3:24 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

#25 06-22-09 7:50 pm

Re: Evidence for an ancient earth and universe

Board footer