Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2017 5:45 PM
334 online now:
dwise1, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 327 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,582 Year: 27,188/21,208 Month: 1,101/1,714 Week: 309/525 Day: 51/66 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1 of 297 (93646)
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


(changed Lake Suigetsu link)

Age Dating Correlations

For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is:
  •     8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
  •   10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
  •   45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
  • ...  corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
  • 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
  • 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
  • 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
  • ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
  • Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
  • ... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites

I started with a post on a Netscape Message Board (Msg#110611 [Age Dating] thread, hyperlinked new), making some typo corrections, replacing some broken links (and associated quotes) and reformatting it into a more readable essay, and and finally, expanded it by adding some further bits of information. I felt it should be put together as a new post because it is important to understand the kind of thing scientists do to validate their methods.

All references are hyperlinked for further study.

The bottom Line? All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap, thus they corroborate each other even though they are based on different environments, different methods and different evidence. For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a short (4-5 day?) period, and it would have to mimic it to such an extent that it would be experienced by any living plant or creature as an actual annual time period.

Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).

Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data.

Rational people can go further and see that the probable age is much older than that. There is data available for instance that is cross referenced between radiometric dating, biological layering and astrophysics that shows that life on this planet is at least 400 million years old.

Inferred Minimum age of the earth = 400,000,000 years based on cross-referenced data.

Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old.

Minimum scientific age of the earth = 4,550,000,000 years

... and counting.


Bristlecone Pines

By counting tree rings and matching the overlapping patterns of growth from live to dead trees, scientists have developed a tree-ring chronology of nearly 10,000 years using wood from the Schulman Grove area, California (one tree still living is 4600 years old). Quotes from the Bristlecone pine website:

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV.

Pinus longaeva is generally regarded as the longest-lived of all sexually reproducing, nonclonal species, with many individuals known to have ages exceeding 4000 years. Due to the resinous wood and extremely cold and arid habitat, decay of dead wood is extremely slow, and wood on the ground in some stands has ages exceeding 10,000 years. This has permitted building a continuous chronology of more than 8,000 years, which in turn has been used to calibrate the radiocarbon timescale. The species has been widely used in dendroclimatic reconstruction and in several classic studies of timberline ecology.

The "Methusulah" specimen was cut down in 1957, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,836 years (and counting). Another site with Bristlecone Pine data is Great Basin National Park:
The Forest Service granted permission for the researcher to take core samples from several old-looking bristlecone pines and to cut one down. Bristlecone pines often grow in a twisted fashion. Also, one section of the tree may die off even a couple thousand years before another part. This means it can be very difficult to capture the oldest part of the tree in a core sample. The tree that was cut down in 1964--while still living--has since become know to some as "Prometheus."

Counting revealed that Prometheus contained about 4,900 growth rings. This made it the oldest known tree. Currently the oldest known living tree, about 4,600 years old, is in the White Mountains of California. Chances are good that there are other, older, bristlecones that have not been dated.

Also see "The Ancient Bristlecone Pine"
and "California's Ancient Bristlecone Pines, the Oldest Living Things"

Minimum age of the earth = 8,000 years based on this data.


European Oaks

My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.

From Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating

Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.

Because ring-porous species almost always begin annual growth with this initial flush, missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact, the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer. A volcanic eruption in the year 1815 caused much cooler temperatures globally, thus causing oak trees to remain dormant. Therefore, no clear annual ring was formed in 1816 for certain locations in Europe.

Occasionally, offsets in oak tree rings can be problematic when trying to crossdate the rings. Dendrochronologists therefore must be careful when working with oak species, as these rays can cause a misdate of one year.

Note that there are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and that all the species show the same trends in world climate. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time.

Minimum age of the earth = 10,000 years based on this data.


Lake Suigetsu Varves

By counting varve layers of diatoms (* if link doesn't work, try this site or see below) in Lake Suigetsu in Japan, scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to establish a chronology extending the calibration of radiocarbon dating to 45,000 years ago as well as confirming the tree ring data (note - the carbon 14 abbreviation used in article changed to "C-14" here for consistency):

Lake Suigetsu is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan. A 75-m long continuous core was taken from the center of the lake. The sediments are characterized by dark-coloured clay with white layers due to spring season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin, sub-millimeter scale laminations or "varves". Based on observation of varve thickness change, we expect that the annually laminated sediment records the palaeoenvironmental changes during the past 100 ka.

This sequence of annually laminated sediments not only forms a unique continuous palaeoenvironmental record after the last interglacial but also permits us to reconstruct a complete C-14 calibration extending back to at least 45 ka BP, and probably even more by means of combined isotope enrichment and AMS C-14. We have performed AMS C-14 measurements on more than 250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments from lake Suigetsu.

Minimum age of the earth = 45,000 years based on this data.

Note that the climatological information from the varves matches that from dendrochronology for the period of overlap. Note further that this is beyond (and thus confirms) the dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago.

Now we have a problem for some people, because we now have confirmed the existence of people back before the supposed biblical beginning of the world according to the "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) model, and we have hardly begun to get into the Hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth.

Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating. And there is more to come ... but first ...

(*) if the above link does not work, the article can be found copied to accuracyingenesis.com - Lake Varves along with some discussion of the implications.


Carbon 14 Radiometric Dating

The Carbon 14 (C-14) data not only corroborates the tree ring and lake varve data, but the measurement system is validated by these studies (especially the varve study) as accurate.

The half life of C-14 means that the practical limit to dating objects by this method is about 50,000 years. The time scale for this dating method was originally based on the current levels of C-14 and assuming they were constant back in time.

The calibration of the C-14 by the diatom varves is not to correct the method of doing the tests or the basis of the testing (whether underwater or not), but to adjust for variations in the amount of solar radiation that causes C-14 to occur (and then start decaying). This fine tunes the result so that the margin of error is reduced. This calibration also shows specimens are actually a little older than predicted by the theories by about 1% to 2%.

Hence radiocarbon dating is confirmed by counting actual years of actual layers of actual growth to 45,000 years ago. More than that, the correspondence of actual dates to the predicted dates from just the physical considerations of the test confirm that it is an accurate method of dating pre-historic artifacts and organic objects up to 50,000 years ago, and using the calibration from the lake varves means that results are based on actual prehistoric worldwide atmospheric C-14 levels rather than theoretical levels.

A good overview of the method, problems, limitations and accuracy of radiometric Carbon 14 dating can be found at Carbon Dating:

Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun. (Specifically, neutrons hit nitrogen-14 atoms and transmute them to carbon.)

Suppose such a creature dies, and the body is preserved. The C14 will undergo radioactive decay, and after 5730 years, half of it will be gone. Eventually, all of it will be gone. So, if we find such a body, the amount of C14 in it will tell us how long ago it was alive.

We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.

This site also seems to cover most of the bases the creatortionistas try to use to discredit it ("creatortionistas" being a term I use for creationists that intentionally misrepresent facts, misquote statements by scientists and the like).


Ice Cores in Greenland

The Greenland Ice Core dating is well established:

Combined with highly advanced measuring techniques (Fuhrer et al. 1993; Hammer et al. 1985;Röthlisberger et al. 2000) the resolution of the Greenland ice-core records can frequently be finer than a year, and potentially this degree of temporal resolution extends back to before 100 thousand years before present. The records are capable therefore of providing information on long-term (millennial, supra-millennial) and short-term (sub-millennial to annual or seasonal) cycles or trends in the Earth’s past environmental history, as well as on important singular events, such as major volcanic eruptions or particularly pronounced climatic shifts. Furthermore, the age and durations of past environmental events can be estimated by counting of the annual ice increments, by analysing selected constituents combined with visual core stratigraphy (Alley et al.1993; Hammer et al. in press,1999?; Hammer et al. 1978; Meese et al. 1997). 
While the cores extend below 2790 meters in depth, they are jumbled below that level and dating the age of the lower ice is not reliable. The layers down to 2790 m correlate to 110,000 years ago:
The similarity (discussed below) of the GISP2 and GRIP records is compelling evidence that the stratigraphy of the ice is reliable and unaffected by extensive folding, intrusion, or hiatuses from the surface to 2790 m (110,000 years ago). This agreement (between the two cores separated by 30 km, 10 ice thicknesses) provides strong support of climatic origin for even the minor features of the records and implies that investigations of subtle environmental signals (e.g., rapid climate change events with 1-2 year onset and termination) can be rigorously pursued.

The climatic significance of the deeper part of the GISP2 ice core, below 2790 m depth and 110 kyr age, is a matter of considerable investigation and controversy. ... Ice in GISP2 below 2790 m depth is folded and tilted, and shows evidence of unconformities [ Gow et al., 1993]. The O of O in GISP2 above 2790 m matches almost perfectly with the Vostok record [ Sowers et al., 1993]; below that depth, it is far noisier and cannot be aligned with the smoothed Vostok signal [ Bender et al., 1994].

The ice below the 2790 meter level means that the earth is older than 110,000 years, but:

Minimum age of the earth = 110,000 years based on this data.


Ice Cores in Antarctica

The layers of the Vostok Ice Cores have been measured independently by several scientists using a variety of methods. There is some uncertainty involved on some layers resulting in minor discrepancies in the data.

From Vostok Ice Core Data

In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999).

From VOSTOK TIME SCALES

6 measurements at 1934 m

  • 136,758 years (Sowers) last datum
  • 141,804 years (Lorius)
  • 137,725 years (Jouzel-1)
  • 135,018 years (Jouzel-2)
  • 140,243 years (Waelbroeck)
  • 135,507 years (Petit)
Average = 137,842 years +/- 3,393 (2.5%)

5 measurements at 2082 m

  • 164,433 years (Lorius) last datum
  • 155,785 years (Jouzel-1)
  • 150,957 years (Jouzel-2)
  • 152,239 years (Waelbroeck)
  • 151,721 years (Petit)
Average = 155,027 years +/- 6,738 (4.3%)

4 measurements at 2757 m

  • 261,787 years (Jouzel-1) last datum
  • 242,235 years (Jouzel-2) last datum
  • 243,004 years (Waelbroeck) last datum
  • 237,975 years (Petit)
Average = 246,250 years +/- 11,906 (4.8%)

1 measurement at 3310 m

  • 422,766 years (Petit) last datum
Average = 422,776 years
Depending on where you want to cut it, there is high concordance with an age of 137,842 years at the 1934 meter depth, and good concordance with both the 155,027 year age at 2082 meter depth and the 246,250 year age at the 2757 meter depth. Note that the  ice core extends beyond these depths and the data ends because of limitations in the measurements (indicating an older overall age for the ice cap). Notice too, that the Petit data is consistently under the averages at these depths -- this would give a high degree of confidence that the minimum age of the ice cap is 422,776 years.

Minimum age of the earth = 422,776 years based on this data.

There is also a discussion of the age of icecaps at TalkOrigins.com


The Devil's Hole

See websites at:http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devilshole.html
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr97-792/
and http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devils.html:

Devils Hole is a tectonically formed cave developed in the discharge zone of a regional aquifer in south-central Nevada. (See Riggs, et al., 1994.) The walls of this subaqueous cavern are coated with dense vein calcite which provides an ideal material for precise uranium-series dating via thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS). Devils Hole Core DH-11 is a 36-cm-long core of vein calcite from which we obtained an approximately 500,000-year-long continuous record of paleotemperature and other climatic proxies. Data from this core were recently used by Winograd and others (1997) to discuss the length and stability of the last four interglaciations.

The Devils Hole d18O record is an indicator of paleotemperature and corresponds in timing and magnitude to paleo-SST (sea surface temperature) recorded in Pacific Ocean sediments off the California and Oregon coasts. The record is also highly correlated with major variations in temperature in the Vostok ice core, from the East Antarctic plateau.

As eminent a geochemist as W. Broecker has stated that "...the Devils Hole chronology is the best we have..." Since 1992, all core material has been uranium-series dated using thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) methodology. In 1997, the Devils Hole Thorium-230 dates were independently confirmed by non-USGS investigators using Protactinium-231.

Note - "highly correlated" with climatological data from the Vostok ice core data, which "matches almost perfectly" the climatological data from the Greenland ice core data. Measured by counting layers and corroborated by two independant radiometric methods. The oldest date in the data table is 567,700 years ago.

Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on this data.


Thorium-230 Radiometric Dating

Note that radiometric dating information and their relation to the other dating systems (such as the ones noted above) are all discussed by this website: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. These are some quotes from the website relating to Thorium-230 dating technique:

Two of the most frequently-used of these "uranium-series" systems are uranium-234 and thorium-230.

Like carbon-14, the shorter-lived uranium-series isotopes are constantly being replenished, in this case, by decaying uranium-238 supplied to the Earth during its original creation. Following the example of carbon-14, you may guess that one way to use these isotopes for dating is to remove them from their source of replenishment. This starts the dating clock. In carbon-14 this happens when a living thing (like a tree) dies and no longer takes in carbon-14 laden CO2. For the shorter-lived uranium-series radionuclides, there needs to be a physical removal from uranium. The chemistry of uranium and thorium are such that they are in fact easily removed from each other. Uranium tends to stay dissolved in water, but thorium is insoluble in water. So a number of applications of the thorium-230 method are based on this chemical partition between uranium and thorium.

As with all dating, the agreement of two or more methods is highly recommended for confirmation of a measurement.

As the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the T-230 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parentU-234, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

See also Wikipedia.com -[Thorium]


Protactinium-231 Radiometric Dating

From Wikipedia.com - [Age of the Earth] these quotes:

Another relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-238 into thorium-230, a process with a half-life of 80,000 years It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.

While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years.

The U-235 to P-231 decay is from a different series than the (U-238 to) U-234 to T-230 decay, so the two are independent of each other. Again, as the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the P-231 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-235, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

See also Wikipedia.com - [Protactinium]


Talking Coral Heads

Now we are going to introduce a twist. Coral heads put down growth layers just like trees and other organic systems.

From Estimating past sea-surface temperatures from corals:

Some species of corals have stony skeletons, consisting almost entirely of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the term coral is often applied to the skeletons themselves.... There are three kinds of this skeletal material, i.e. plate-like, branching, and ‘massive’. The last is rounded and bulky and proves to be useful for estimating past sea-surface temperatures (SST) in tropical regions.

X-ray examination reveals that massive coral has layers of different density, due to seasonal variations, like the annual rings of tree trunks. Counting of the density layers in large colonies of coral provides annual dating of the layers for several hundreds of years. Massive coral cores of the Porites type on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have been dated back to 1479 AD.

So where's the twist? Those dates are pretty insignificant compared to the other data, right? The twist comes from ancient corals. Sure, one can assemble all the coral cores and align them by seasonal variations and piece together a database similar to the tree ring data bases we started with, but as it sits now there are not enough cores to assemble without significant gaps in between (I fully expect a complete database to be assembled over time).

For now we can assemble the bits and pieces, placing the ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (T-230 and P-231 are used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who doubt radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?

The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system. From CoralGrowth and Geochronometry (Nature, March 9, 1963 By Prof. John W. Wells):

The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...

The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.

A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.

The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).

Probable Minimum age of the earth = 400,000,000 years based on this data.

At this point we have moved from hard evidence of actual years into inferred evidence, waiting for the hard evidence to fill in the gaps. As this is also a biological bit of evidence we can also say that the (inferred) probable minimum age of life on earth is 400 million years.


Other Information

Another site that discusses radiometric dating information and their relation to the other dating systems (such as the ones noted above) is on this website: An Essay on Radiometric Dating By Jonathon Woolf

There are also a bunch of 'slide-shows' available. See the complete set of slide shows - some of the pertinent ones are:

Coral Cores A neat overview of the Coral Core method and results

Tree Rings Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation,

Low Latitude Ice Cores: Ice Core techniques (Good picture of layers on slide 3) and results for two glaciers near the equator in South America, extending back 1500 years (slide 6), with 'little ice age' confirmed and discussions on the relative dO16 and dO18 ratios (slide 11), and in China extending back 40,000 years (slide 17).

"Putting politics aside, researchers operate in a truly international scientific community, one whose only boundaries are those of knowledge."

Ice Ages an overview of ice ages in earths past, and mentions the flood (slide 6), Milankovitch (slide 11) ... good example of the growth and development of the scientific theory process in explaining the known data as new information is added.


... can we have a little hmmm now? yes we can ...

Time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Now you always say
That you want to be free
But you'll come running back (said you would baby)
You'll come running back (I said so many times before)
You'll come running back to me

Oh, time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

You're searching for good times
But just wait and see
You'll come running back (I won't have to worry no more)
You'll come running back (spend the rest of my life with you, baby)
You'll come running back to me

Go ahead, go ahead and light up the town
And baby, do everything your heart desires
Remember, I'll always be around
And I know, I know
Like I told you so many times before
You're gonna come back, baby
'Cause I know
You're gonna come back knocking
Yeah, knocking right on my door
Yes, yes!

Well, time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

'Cause I got the real love
The kind that you need
You'll come running back (said you would, baby)
You'll come running back (I don't always said you would)
You'll come running back (I won't have to worry no more)
Yes time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
Oh, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
I said, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
Oh, time, time, time is on my side
Yeah, time, time, time is on my side

- Rolling Stones

(yeah, I know ... they are as old as the dinosaurs ...)


Enjoy

{{edit fixed link on Greenland Ice Cores}}
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-26-2004]

{{edit added material in pink}}
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-08-2004]

{{edit changed link on Suigetsu Lake Varves}}
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-08-2004]

{{edit changed link back on Suigetsu Lake Varves}}

[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-28-2004]


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 12:38 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2004 12:28 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2004 3:26 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 112 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-23-2004 1:52 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 113 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-23-2004 1:54 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2004 7:29 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 10:35 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 11:01 PM RAZD has not yet responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 2 of 297 (93655)
03-21-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


Thanks Abby, needed some information.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 2:05 PM joshua221 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 3 of 297 (93667)
03-21-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joshua221
03-21-2004 12:38 PM


I notice from another thread that you list yourself as YEC.

I am curious how you can reconcile that with the evidence for an old earth and why, specifically you feel YE is necessary?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 12:38 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 8:20 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 6 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 8:30 PM RAZD has responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 4 of 297 (93745)
03-21-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
03-21-2004 2:05 PM


Simply need information of the other side, I often find myself in debate when in fact I don't know their side of it.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 2:05 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Sylas, posted 03-21-2004 8:28 PM joshua221 has responded

Sylas
Member (Idle past 2847 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 5 of 297 (93748)
03-21-2004 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by joshua221
03-21-2004 8:20 PM


prophex writes:

Simply need information of the other side, I often find myself in debate when in fact I don't know their side of it.

Kudos. What a stunningly constructive attitude. Well done.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 8:20 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 8:34 PM Sylas has not yet responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 297 (93749)
03-21-2004 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
03-21-2004 2:05 PM


I feel that a YE is necessary for Biblical truth to exist. (Although this may seem circular.) I do believe that Biblical truth exists, so I am constantly researching to find if possibility remains. So far, many rebuttals to Evo's arguments are dwindling from what I learned at camp, and I realize that the mentor who taught me was very wrong, going from meetings with Dr. Hovind, I don't know how he could be right, it seems Dr. Hovind sometimes gives arguments that are humorous at most to Evolutionists. So right now I know that a YE has to be a possibility because of the Genesis account, but most of my information has been refuted... So pretty much any info is good info at this point.

Most arguments that I do well on, are mainly ethical or moralality issues, such as abortion or Biblical technicalities like homosexuality, Jesus, and/or others.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 2:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:35 PM joshua221 has responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 7 of 297 (93753)
03-21-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Sylas
03-21-2004 8:28 PM


Thanks Sylas.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Sylas, posted 03-21-2004 8:28 PM Sylas has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 8 of 297 (93774)
03-21-2004 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by joshua221
03-21-2004 8:30 PM


I think you may be too hard on faith.

The concept of a young earth is based on assumptions based on interpretations based on translations based on ... you get the idea.

I have seen estimates by YEC's ranging from 4,000 years old to 12,000 years old, so there is obviously a lot of "wiggle room" in making such calculations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm discusses some sources of errors.

once there are gaps in the dating ... (what gaps in creationism???) ... then the result must be questioned.

when there is evidence to the contrary the result must be revised.

the proof of the earth orbiting the sun was seen as a test of truth by many, but the faith has survived.

it will survive the loss of YEC as well.

ever read the Jefferson Bible?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by joshua221, posted 03-21-2004 8:30 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 5:59 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 10 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 6:03 PM RAZD has responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 297 (93918)
03-22-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:35 PM


"it will survive the loss of YEC as well"

Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true.

Also no, have not read the Jefferson Bible, let me click the link, thanks again.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:35 PM RAZD has not yet responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 297 (93921)
03-22-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:35 PM


quote:
. . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.

Understood, sounds pretty interesting, but the "Supernatural" elements which are discussed here, I believe as truth, so why read a "Jefferson" Bible, when I have it in my grasp in the KJV, NIV?


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:54 AM joshua221 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 11 of 297 (94009)
03-23-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joshua221
03-22-2004 6:03 PM


why not OEC
Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true.
I do enjoy sarcasm. Seriously though heliocentrism dislodged the earth from being the center of the universe and the christian faith has survived. Is age that different a "challenge" to the faith? I think it is less so, as the age is ultimately indeterminate from the bible ... have you tried?

Understood, sounds pretty interesting, but the "Supernatural" elements which are discussed here, I believe as truth, so why read a "Jefferson" Bible, when I have it in my grasp in the KJV, NIV?
If you consider that the Jefferson is the ultimate distillation of the bible, then you know it cannot be totally discredited. Where there are supernatural elements that cannot be refuted by factual evidence, then those too cannot be discredited. Faith in jesus as the son of god is one of those elements.

The fact that there are many sects of christianity that do not require a literal interpretation of the bible, to say nothing of requiring a young earth, shows that christianity will survive the loss of the YE model ... it is already doing so. Not that everyone will be convinced, there are still some flatearthers after all.

I believe that there are elements of truth in all religions, and if you look for concordance you can find it -- religious experience of ascetics for example cover the earth and appear in most (I do not know "all") religions.

What is wrong with Old Earth Creationism?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joshua221, posted 03-22-2004 6:03 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joshua221, posted 03-23-2004 7:53 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 13 by joshua221, posted 03-23-2004 7:56 PM RAZD has responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 12 of 297 (94238)
03-23-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
03-23-2004 12:54 AM


Re: why not OEC
quote:
Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true.

quote:
I do enjoy sarcasm. Seriously though heliocentrism dislodged the earth from being the center of the universe and the christian faith has survived. Is age that different a "challenge" to the faith? I think it is less so, as the age is ultimately indeterminate from the bible ... have you tried?

Nope, no sarcasm there, I am seriously about a quarter through a semester of my 9th grade Earth Science Class... Not Joking.

Of course there is difference. And yes, I agree that the main intention of the Bible is not to reveal the Earth's age. Many think that it doesn't matter, as long as you live according to the Bible, you'll be "OK" and Yup you'll go to Heaven... This is not the case for me, and most likely the same goes for others, I need answers, answers of not only how to live but of how we came to live. I feel that YEC is not a lost cause, and as long as Genesis is in the Bible it will remain this way, or at least I hope so...

quote:
What is wrong with Old Earth Creationism?

Old Earth Creationism is fine with me for the most part, of course a literal view of the Biblical accounts of Genesis are not fully exploited.


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:05 AM joshua221 has responded
 Message 204 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-14-2004 5:47 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 13 of 297 (94239)
03-23-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
03-23-2004 12:54 AM


Re: why not OEC
quote:
there are still some flatearthers after all

I've seen this line twice in a week, haha I love it. Check the Sig.

(Loudmouth: once, Abby: once)


The earth is flat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:02 AM joshua221 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 14 of 297 (94295)
03-24-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by joshua221
03-23-2004 7:56 PM


Re: why not OEC
I know
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by joshua221, posted 03-23-2004 7:56 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joshua221, posted 03-24-2004 6:01 PM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 15 of 297 (94296)
03-24-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by joshua221
03-23-2004 7:53 PM


Re: why not OEC
I would say that the bible doesn't even begin to give a clue to the age of the earth, but that is my opinion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joshua221, posted 03-23-2004 7:53 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joshua221, posted 03-24-2004 6:03 PM RAZD has responded

1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017