Thanks SoSick for your in depth response,


I have to wonder what you learned from your reading SoSick, as those mummies had teeth (those that had heads) as well as skin and clothes and organs, and they were obviously from earlier times in history -- by hundreds of years -- and yet there was no decay, thus demonstrating that your opinion -- whatever information it is based on -- is false. Opinion is not reality SoSick.

Carbon-14 Levels

Furthermore, the ages of the tree-ring data are validated by the carbon-14 levels in the samples. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual ration of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the sample. This is like plotting the quantity measured (ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12) on a graph with a logarithmic scale.

The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two or more samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 (the three common isotopes) - will have the same levels of carbon-14 in the samples today, no matter how much that differs from the original amount.

No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact, for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time. Thus, when sample {A} is dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has ratio {Y} of carbon-14 to carbon-12, and when sample {B} is also dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it also has ratio {Y} of carbon-14 to carbon-12, the common ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 between the two samples validates the dendrochronological age ... simply because, growing in the same environment, they could not be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

Samples of the same age cannot have different ratios of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

This allows us to check for errors in the dendrochronology by comparing ratios of carbon-14 to carbon-12 at different ages from different tree chronologies.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857174.html


http://www.c14dating.com/int.html


http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable


This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 changes back to Nitrogen-14 by beta-minus decay:

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html


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 in a measurable amount of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis, and those plants absorb carbon in the proportions of carbon-14 and carbon-12 existing in the atmosphere at the time (thus they have the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the atmosphere at the time the growth formed).

The level of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years 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:

<img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/carbon14calibration.jpg">
(Image based on calibration curvefrom Wikipedia - Both images are in the public domain.)

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable


These 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":

http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf


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 was 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.

Conclusions

The actual ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 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 any changes to the radioactive decay before, during, or 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.

While it is possible for samples of slightly different ages to have the same carbon-14 content (due to the variation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere over time), it is not possible for samples to be the same age and have different 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.

Sufficient false rings to make a 6,000 year old earth possible would show up in the carbon-14 data as a significant rise and change in slope of the carbon-14 curve that is not supported in any way by the data: if anything the data shows a flatter curve in the past.

False (and missing) tree-rings are readily identified by dendrochronologists due to their differences from real annual tree-rings, and this has already been done for the dendrochronologies presented: there are no massive numbers of false rings in any of the data.

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.

The correlation between tree ring age and the theoretical carbon-14 age also validates the carbon-14 dating method in general and improves it by calibrating it to actual carbon-14 environments in times past.

Minimum age of the earth >12,405 years based on this data.

The tree-ring data has been confirmed\validated by the carbon-14 data, not only do the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios correlate between the three different tree chronologies for the lengths of their records, but the "14-C age" curve shows no scattering of data from the different sets of data that would be caused by disagreement between the chronologies, no sudden changes in slope that would be caused by false or missed tree rings, nor any variation from predicted values significant enough to fall outside expected changes in carbon-14 levels that would indicate any change in radioactivity and decay rates during this record.

In other words, not one effect usually proposed by creationists regarding tree-ring validity, carbon-14 dating or radioactive decay is visible in the data when it is correlated.

And we haven't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]