Well, SoSick, I've missed your bright cheery comments, so I thought I would add some more to this thread.
go take a walk and find me some preserved wood. most of the stuff around my neck of the woods rots within two years of exposure lying dead on the ground. you can't even burn it anymore it's so rotten and buggy.
You are, of course, right about what happens
most of the time, but you are not right about what happens
all of the time. The normal decay of organic objects is of course why there are so few fossils in the geological record compared to the likely populations of organisms alive at any one time.
You can do a comparison of the number of fossils preserved in the La Brea tar pits to the fossils preserved in sedimentary deposits around the La Brea tar pits. The same populations of animals lived in the area, yet the number in the pits is thousands times more than in the sedimentary deposits.
There are many instances where items are preserved much longer than would otherwise be expected. Tar pits and acidic peat bogs are two well known examples. Instances of rapid burial also have preserved fossils, some even with skin and organs. To deny preservation of such fossils is to deny reality.
your science stinks of brain rot.
And yet you have not been able to show that any of it is wrong. Rather telling that lack of any answer from you, from Russ, from any of the creationists.
Here is another correlation with the tree rings that will bring our discussion of dendrochronology to a termination point, a foundation to build on, where we can move on to other evidence.
This has to do with the sunspot cycle, the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is linked to the cosmic ray activity of the sun which is linked to the sunspot cycle.
In
RAZD Message 248525 of this thread we saw that cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms produced carbon-14. Cosmic rays are produced by the sun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_raysLater, it was found that the solar cosmic rays vary widely in their intensity and spectrum, increasing in strength after some solar events such as solar flares. Further, an increase in the intensity of solar cosmic rays is followed by a decrease in all other cosmic rays, called the Forbush decrease after their discoverer, the physicist Scott Forbush. These decreases are due to the solar wind with its entrained magnetic field sweeping some of the galactic cosmic rays outwards, away from the Sun and Earth. The overall or average rate of Forbush decreases tends to follow the 11-year sunspot cycle, but individual events are tied to events on the Sun, as explained above.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Solar_cycle.gif">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_cycle.gifThe picture is of the variation of cosmic rays with time. Notice that the peaks are numbered, with peak 1 being at ~1761 and peak 23 being at ~2003, 22 peaks in 242 years is an 11 year cycle. This cycle also affects climate.
We also see this same pattern of maximums and minimums in the carbon-14 data from the tree rings -- as would be expected with the trees obtaining their carbon from the atmosphere -- and in the thickness of the rings -- which reflects the changes in climate from the solar activity. We can detect this same cycle in ancient wood as well as young wood. But the kicker is that the period of the cycle is not always the same -- it varies from 9 to 12 years with an 11 year average -- but the data for the tree rings (thickness=climate cycle) and the data for the carbon-14 levels (cosmic ray cycle) show the same cycles. When one is 9 years, the other is 9 years, and when one is 12 years, the other is 12 years.
This is an independent correlation locked away in each tree ring, a correlation independent of tree ring count and carbon-14 age.
Finally, I leave you with this article from quote from "Creation Research" ...
Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year,
(it's the second abstract):
There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.
That's a creationist source saying that there were no multiple ring growths counted in the dendrochronologies, that the age for the tree rings adds up to over 10,000 years.
Some people admit the facts that the evidence of objective reality shows.
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]
