Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8093 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2014 11:00 AM
201 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 732,871 Year: 18,712/28,606 Month: 1,983/2,305 Week: 188/671 Day: 34/68 Hour: 0/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 144 (589817)
11-04-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JonF
11-04-2010 4:42 PM


I briefly read that letter last week at my parents house (my father receives JoC).

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 11-04-2010 4:42 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9309
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 32 of 144 (589825)
11-04-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-04-2010 4:45 PM


slevesque writes:

... we are dating the rock, but we are finding a maximum age for the ocean.


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


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 9:46 PM zombie ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5135
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 33 of 144 (589831)
11-04-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-04-2010 4:45 PM


You have an input, output and the total amount of something. This is the basic requirement for any dating method whatsoever.

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.

The salt in oceans is a maximum, because of the assumption that you start with an ocean with zero sodium in it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 9:51 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 34 of 144 (589835)
11-04-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:16 PM


Hi Slevesque,

- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. This was in fact my very first thread at EvC, and if you want to discuss it you could dig up my old thread and we could start off from there.

- One that points to the given age. For example, the helium diffusion in zircon crystals experiment done by Humphreys and Baumgardner falls into this category.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:16 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:03 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4944
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 144 (589851)
11-04-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:16 PM


Salt accumulation
slevesque writes:

One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. This was in fact my very first thread at EvC, and if you want to discuss it you could dig up my old thread and we could start off from there

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:16 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12597
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 36 of 144 (589865)
11-04-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-04-2010 4:45 PM


- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth.

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.

You have an input, output and the total amount of something. This is the basic requirement for any dating method whatsoever. This alone shows that the accumulation of salt in the ocean can be used

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

But more importantly, you have to show that today's condition of the earth is appreciably different then at any other moment in the past. For all we know, there is nothing unusual about the current conditions that would suggest this is not representative of how it has generally always been.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 37 of 144 (589886)
11-04-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by zombie ringo
11-04-2010 5:36 PM


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

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 5:36 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 9:57 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 144 (589890)
11-04-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
11-04-2010 5:52 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

See above


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9309
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 39 of 144 (589893)
11-04-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
11-04-2010 9:46 PM


slevesque writes:

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


The age of the rock correlates between a dozen or more different methods. Your supposed age of the ocean doesn't correlate with anything.

slevesque writes:

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.


That's exactly what you're being told. You can't just assert that ocean salt gives the "true" age of the earth. You have to explain why all of the other methods are wrong and why they correlate so well with each other if they're all wrong. RAZD has a nice thread where you're welcome to try to do just that.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 9:46 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM zombie ringo has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 144 (589894)
11-04-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Zubbbra25
11-04-2010 6:05 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.

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.

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.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-04-2010 6:05 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 144 (589898)
11-04-2010 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2010 8:05 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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 12:14 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2010 12:35 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1013 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 144 (589902)
11-04-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by zombie ringo
11-04-2010 9:57 PM


The age of the rock correlates between a dozen or more different methods. Your supposed age of the ocean doesn't correlate with anything.

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 exactly what you're being told. You can't just assert that ocean salt gives the "true" age of the earth. You have to explain why all of the other methods are wrong and why they correlate so well with each other if they're all wrong. RAZD has a nice thread where you're welcome to try to do just that.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 9:57 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 10:45 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 44 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 10:45 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9309
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 43 of 144 (589904)
11-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:34 PM


slevesque writes:

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.


Please do that. It would be a first for creationists.

(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.)

slevesque writes:

You would then probably start by taking each one individually, and show where you think the reasoning is flawed in each one.


That's why they're called "Points Refuted A Thousand Times". They're refuted over and over again because creationists don't understand the refutations and misrepresent them.

slevesque writes:

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 ?''.


The problem is that the young ages don't correlate to each other. Nobody has ever shown any correlation. The two examples that you gave today don't even come close to the same age.

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

Edited by ringo, : Splling.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 4:57 PM zombie ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 44 of 144 (589905)
11-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:34 PM


You need to remember that all it takes is one single example of something that is older than your young earth age to falsify your position?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 11:01 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4636
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 45 of 144 (589907)
11-04-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
11-04-2010 10:45 PM


A single example...
You need to remember that all it takes is one single example of something that is older than your young earth age to falsify your position?

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!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 10:45 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014