Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

by skyking 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Perry

    The actual has been tested by carbon-14 dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida, USA.

    Previously, pine trees in North America have been cited as the oldest at 4,000 to 5,000 years old.

    The carbon 14 dating basic assumption is that the earth today is the same as it has always been. Not only does the bible claim that the earth was much different in its past, it accurately predicts the accepted basis of the Carbon 14 dating method and further characterizes the thinking of evolutionists as denying a biblical flood.

    2 Pet. 3 - there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, ..... all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: - AV

    A Critical Assumption

    A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14 C to 12 C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14 C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14 C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14 C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14 C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14 C to 12 C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14 C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

    Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

    In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14 C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

    If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle. 2

    Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14 C / 12 C is not constant.

    The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. 3

    What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14 C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

  • 10p
    then maybe the earth is not very old.

    Dont see how 14C has anything to do with the age of the earth. Life ... sure.

    Secondly, Carbon dating is calibrated to tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores, corals etc. So fluctuations in the 14C ratio in the atmosphere, caused by solar activity or other changes in the cosmic ray radiation have been accounted for for the last 26 000 years. Over the last 10 000 years, at the worst points, accuracy is within 350 years.

    I once gave a talk about how rubbish carbon dating was ... of course, I did my research through the WT publications, not from those who actually invented and use carbon dating. Seems the scientists realised this problem too, and spent the last 60 years calibrating for it.

    Either way, a tree dated 9000 odd years old can reasonably be accepted as being 9000 years old, plus or minus 300 or 400 years.

    I don't fully understand what is meant about the growth of the tree in the original post - it could be possible, if I understand correctly, that the tree did 'die' in the flood, but regrew after it, and its oldest portion that is dated as 9000 odd years old is the bit that, badly battered, survived the flood and was able to spawn a new growth afterwards?

    So either way, its all very interesting, but I don't see how this tree has any effect on the flood myth.

  • JCanon

    RC14 dating is not considered to be accurate past 1500 BCE when it begins to become exaggerated and inconsistent with dendrochronology. But for dates ealier than 1500 BC the dating seems quite accurate.


  • skyking

    The flood myth is dying as more and more evidence comes forward proving it did not happen 4,500 years ago.

    You can only believe the Great Flood on faith. Evidence does not allow for this assured expectation of things not yet beheld.

  • FreeWilly
    Perry: "The carbon 14 dating basic assumption is that the earth today is the same as it has always been."

    Where did you get that idea? Source? It seems by the material you cited that you believe that somehow scientists have overlooked CO2 fluctuations in Earth's historical climate? Your material refers to Dr Libby - the one who discovered Carbon Dating shortly after WW2. You do realize that methods of dating, including carbon dating, have dramatically improved - right?

    A quick search of Wikipedia shows no assumption of constant CO2 in Earths historic climate. In fact it's quite the opposite (and rather obvious).

    Wikipedia: Radiocarbon dating

    A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14 C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere...

    Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)...

    Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels [15] . These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past [16] .

    The myth that Carbon Dating is inaccurate due to atmospheric fluctuations of CO2 persists amoung Bible believers despite readily available evidence to the contrary. It appears to be more of a "crutch" helping them cling to belief in the Bible than a real concern for accuracy.

  • JCanon
    The myth that Carbon Dating is inaccurate due to atmospheric fluctuations of CO2 persists amoung Bible believers despite readily available evidence to the contrary. It appears to be more of a "crutch" helping them cling to belief in the Bible than a real concern for accuracy.

    Pre 1200 BCE dating has some problems for Bible chronology but it is clear that the accuracy gets distorted earlier than that...

    Rather remarkably though, for an excellent sample found at the destructive layer of Rehov by Shishak, which we can use Biblical dating to apply to the last year of Solomon, it's the same year!!!


    And, further, it contradicts the revised Bible chronology which dates all events from the Assyrian Period forward 54 years too earlier because of using the incorrect eclipse in 763 BCE, which actually occurs in 709 BCE. The RC14 dating, therefore, supports the Bible's specific timeline!

    Notice how the current popular date of 925 BCE compares with the RC14 results:

    Per strict Biblical chronology, 871 BCE would be the year of Shishak's invasion using the 709 BCE eclipse.


  • buffalosrfree

    that tree will be used by creationist to show that trees can live under water that has been sickened by salt water, and by gooly gee can live over a year under that water and when the water subsides, it will have leaves. More WTBTS scientific nonsense propagated by the GB .

  • Perry

    How's this Free Willy:

    Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

    "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

  • Perry
    Dont see how 14C has anything to do with the age of the earth. Life ... sure.
    The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. 3

    If you start with an inorganic earth, from the time organic life appears the production rate of carbon 14 will eventually equal the amount of decay. The founder thought this might be 30,000 years. Since the equilibrium hasn't been reached, this finding is in favor of a young earth/organic material.

  • Perry

    Radiocarbon dating

    Photo by Mauricio Nascimento, www.sxc.hu

    blue gill

    Some try to measure age by how much 14 C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years. 1 But evolutionists know it can’t, because 14 C decays too fast. Its half-life (t ½ ) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. 2 In fact, a lump of 14 C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years. 3

    So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But is this not what we find, even with very sensitive 14 C detectors. 4


    Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically 5 to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago. 5

    Dating diamonds

    Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group, 6 investigated 14 C in a number of diamonds. 7 There should be no 14 C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.

Share this