Message 31 of 144 (589817) 11-04-2010 4:54 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by JonF 11-04-2010 4:42 PM

I see nothing wrong with Humphreys being able to admit he was wrong on this. I, however, see something wrong in that Henke makes an enormous case out of nothing, since the misreading is on a model of the past temperatures of the region, not experimental data of the region. Even then, the overall effect of all this on the end result is very small, and the fact that he makes it seem so important reveal how much he is scrubbing for details. The matter of the fact is that the experimental data still supports Humphreys approach, and trumps models any day of the week.

Message 33 of 144 (589831) 11-04-2010 5:52 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque 11-04-2010 4:45 PM

You forgot the constancy of these inputs and outputs. That is required as well. What good is a clock if it runs backwards and forwards at random times?

Guess what happens when seawater freezes? The salt concentration goes up. Guess what happens when polar ice thaws? Salt concentrations go down. Guess what happens when erosion increases on land? Salt concentrations go up.

Salt concentrations in the oceans are not a reflection of time. They are a reflection of erosion and temperature.

When water freezes at the poles it takes water out of the oceans but leaves the salt in the ocean. The opposite happens when the polar ice melts. This is a HUGE problem for you model. Also, the amount of salt entering the oceans will change as erosion changes on land. There are simply too many variables affecting salt concentrations in the oceans for it to be a valid measure of time.

Message 34 of 144 (589835) 11-04-2010 6:05 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque 11-04-2010 2:16 PM

As the salt issue is being addressed, I took a look at the zircon one, and there is a massive essay on talkorigins, Zircon - Talkorigins, which discusses this in length, unfortunatly I don't have the time, nor the relevant understanding to read through this essay.

Back on topic though, what I want to find out is, not if there are problems with current geology and certain issues you think it might have, but what DATING methods YEC's can use, ones that correlate to a minimum age of 4350 or 6000 years.

Take RAZD's Correlations topic for instance, is there a similar YEC one? Would the YEC dating techniques show correlations between C14 dating, tree-rings, lake varves and so forth? Or would new, independent dating methods need to be employed by YEC's?

Message 35 of 144 (589851) 11-04-2010 7:33 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque 11-04-2010 2:16 PM

There are plenty of unaddressed criticisms of the ocean salinity aging technique in that old thread of yours. Perhaps participation in that thread would be a more attractive option if you answered some of the stuff already posted.

Message 36 of 144 (589865) 11-04-2010 8:05 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque 11-04-2010 4:45 PM

Even given the flawed methods of creationists, the maximum age came out to hundreds of thousands of years, didn't it? Which would not be consistent with a young Earth.

However, in fairness, we should note that this is one case where omphalism is arguably justified. If God magicked saltwater fish into existence in the beginning, he'd have to make the seas salt from the get-go, since most saltwater fish perish in fresh water.

Except that, as we demonstrated on your thread on this topic, creationists are ignoring several outputs.

We know that the conditions are different because currently no basin-wide marine evaporite deposits are being formed.

Message 37 of 144 (589886) 11-04-2010 9:46 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by ringo 11-04-2010 5:36 PM

Since the supposed age of the rock is older than my age of the ocean, there's obviously something wrong with your assumptions.

See what I just did ? Stating there's something wrong is the easy part, but if you can't find where it is wrong, you have no case at all, just assertion.

Message 38 of 144 (589890) 11-04-2010 9:51 PM

Reply to: Message 33 by Taq 11-04-2010 5:52 PM

Yet if you see the clock right now running forward at a constant rate, why think it was any different in the past ?

If you claim it was different, I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you unfortunately.

here you show a basic misunderstanding of the issue. It has nothing to do with concentrations, it is all about the total amount of sodium. If I put 10g of salt in 1L or 10L of water, sure the concentration changes, but it's still 10g of salt.

it is the salt that accumulates, not the concentration of salt, that much should be obvious.

See above

Message 40 of 144 (589894) 11-04-2010 10:03 PM

Reply to: Message 34 by Zubbbra25 11-04-2010 6:05 PM

Maybe that's the problem right. If you have a genuine interest to dig into the Evo/creo issue, you have to be able to not just go on talkorigins.org and have the impression they got it all figured out. You have to be able to also read the creationist litterature without preconceived notions and see how they approach the data.

Without that, all you'll get is your daily shot of confirmation bias.

They have this page (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth) where they pretty much regrouped a whole lot of subjects they write about all in one list, but it's a mixed bag. Some relate pretty well with the age of earth such as it's magnetic field, salt in oceans, etc. and could be regrouped into a thread similar to RAZD's, while others are very peripheric; for example ''DNA in ancient fossils'' (as Taq said, just because you find something young on the earth doesn't mean the earth is young)

Message 41 of 144 (589898) 11-04-2010 10:18 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate 11-04-2010 8:05 PM

92 million years I think. But of course, this is going all the way back to when there wasn't a grain of salt in the ocean, a situation that never was even in the naturalistic history of the oceans.

But hey, if RAZD can correlate a 8k year old tree with the 4,5Ba of the earth, why couldn't I correlate a maximum of 92Ma with a 6k year old earth ?

Didn't we discuss this once in another thread ? Those cases where something is only a sign of age if you presuppose it's naturalistic origin ?

The existence of the earth, for example, is hardly a sign of age unless you presuppose that it formed via naturalistic processes.

One exception per million years (random number) does not negate the fact, that for all intents and purposes the assumption that the current conditions are representative of how it has generally always been.

Of course, it then becomes a matter of determining if these rare occasions have effect so great as to reverse the accumulation to a near equilibrium.

Message 42 of 144 (589902) 11-04-2010 10:34 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by ringo 11-04-2010 9:57 PM

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find such a rock that has a single age from a dozen or more different methods. I really doubt such a rock exists to be honest.

That's because I never said it was a ''true'' age of the earth, just a maximum.

Concerning RAZD's thread, you do realize I could build a similar one, with a bunch of so-called ''PRATT's'' which correlate with a young earth.

You would then probably start by taking each one individually, and show where you think the reasoning is flawed in each one. Of course, at that point, we would agree that it would be stupid of me to just respond ''Yeah, but why do they correlate together so well then ?''. This wouldn't really add anything to the discussion, nor does it help discovering the truth of the matter.

Yet this is usually what effectively happens just about every time we discuss one of the points on RAZD list. (usually the dating method, but I suppose the same answer would be served when discussing about any other thing on the list)

Message 43 of 144 (589904) 11-04-2010 10:45 PM

Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque 11-04-2010 10:34 PM

(By the way, correlating "with a young earth" isn't good enough. Your methods have to agree with each other to produce a definite age.)

You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away.

Edited by ringo, : Splling.

Message 45 of 144 (589907) 11-04-2010 11:01 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by jar 11-04-2010 10:45 PM

Exactly. I have obtained radiocarbon dates in excess of 12,000 years. There goes the idea that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

And my colleagues in other areas have obtained radiocarbon dates far older.

And other -ologists in other areas have radiometric dates of all ages on different things, including maximum ages of the earth going back some 4.5 billion years.

Whoops! There goes the idea of a young earth.

And these dates are supported by scientific methods and real world evidence; they are not something just pulled out of thin air as creationists' dates generally are.

Don't like it? Come up with dates based on valid scientific methods and real world evidence that support your beliefs. But better be careful when attempting science--look what happened to the RATE Project boys when they investigated nuclear decay!