Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 164 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-30-2014 10:26 AM
73 online now:
Coyote, GDR, jar, PaulK (4 members, 69 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: AppleScratch
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,039 Year: 20,880/28,606 Month: 1,377/2,774 Week: 260/238 Day: 4/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12677
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 46 of 144 (589914)
11-05-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:18 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.

Really?

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 ?

I don't think you're using the word "correlate" correctly. And the answer would be that the Earth can be older than some of its contents but not younger.

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 ?

We did. And I drew a distinction between cases where God would have to create the Earth looking old in order to fulfill his plan (e.g. salt in the oceans, the existence of topsoil) and cases where the only thing that this achieves is to mess with the heads of geologists.

I admit that the salinity of the ocean falls into the first category.

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.

But however rare and exceptional these circumstances may have been, they remain of significance because what was rare and exceptional about them was that they involved the deposition of staggeringly huge amount of halites. The Louann Salt, for example, covers 800,000 square kilometers and is four kilometers deep. That's seven quadrillion tonnes of salt. Are we meant to ignore that simply because the time it spent forming was brief compared to the vast extent of geological time?

It's as though someone observed that I was not presently eating, and concluded that I must have starved to death years ago. I point out that I spend at least half an hour a day shoveling food into my mouth. He replies that the fact that I rarely eat (only about 2% of the time, as I admit) does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes the current conditions are "representative of how it has generally always been".

Yes ... me not eating is "representative of how it has generally always been" ... but the exceptions, however rare by comparison, are the times that I spend eating.

---

Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5116
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 47 of 144 (589916)
11-05-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:18 PM


Salinity is really not a dating technique...
slevesque writes:

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.

Even assuming that the ocean salinity age estimate were valid, it isn't really a dating technique is it? We could say that the oceans are less than ninety something million years old, but we cannot date anything else.

Unless there is possibility of finding samples of ancient ocean water with its salinity preserved, how would we date anything. We cannot, for example, use ocean salinity to date the Great Sphinx to show that it is younger that 4400 years old. We just know that the Sphinx and everything else are less than ninety or so million years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:00 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 48 of 144 (589927)
11-05-2010 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:03 PM


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)

Slevesque, these are the same old pratts that are shown everywhere... All they do is show 'what ifs'. I mean they're still using magnetic decay as a 'proof'?

By throwing a bunch of pratts into a list does nothing to show the earth is 6000 years old, all it does is show a list of things that YEC have tried to use to show the earth is 6000 years old, and failed.

If, on the other hand, you could show using various independant methods for instance, that every stratigraphic layer was 4350 years old as consistent with the flud, and all fossils found within those layers was 4350 years old. That would be an interesting case. The case of 'what ifs' doesn't work. If you claim the earth is 6000 years old, the burden of proof is on you. And EVERY dating method you employ needs to be consistent with this. You can not pick and choose.

ABE: Just a link to address many of those 'proofs' for a young-earth: Talk origins young-earth proofs

Edited by Zubbbra25, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:03 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:07 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5131
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 49 of 144 (589958)
11-05-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:16 PM


For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth.

And the accumulation of aluminum in the oceans gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth - very young. Like less than 150 years, Slevesque.

And that age is confirmed to be true, because you don't know a single person who worked on clipper ships before 1900.

Your salt argument is just this absurd.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
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 55 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:09 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 50 of 144 (590058)
11-05-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
11-04-2010 9:46 PM


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

What are the assumptions and why are they wrong?

I have shown why the assumptions of salinity dating are wrong, so why don't you try and do the same for U/Pb dating of zircons?


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 51 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 3:26 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:12 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 51 of 144 (590060)
11-05-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
11-05-2010 3:21 PM


And even if the zircon evidence was wrong, uranium halos exist.

Once again, a single fact destroys young earth.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 52 of 144 (590190)
11-06-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
11-04-2010 10:45 PM


I'll adress this:

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

This just shows you don't really want to have an intelligent discussion. Because I give three back to back replies right, trying to get w worthwhile discussion going, and you come in with this nonesense that I ''run away''.

All the while, very few of you are really cutting down to the fact and implications of the salt-in-sea issue. Instead you just go around hand-waving and quite frankly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to get it through why a maximum of 92 million years for the age the oceans on this planet is a problem for a 4,5Byo earth but fits with the idea of a young earth. Really, if some of you can't see that, there's no point in me discussing with you.

Two however, did go on to discuss the facts. Dr.A's concern about halite depositions will be answered in the appropriate thread. Taq, unfortunately, did not see the difference between salt concentration and salt accumulation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 11-04-2010 10:45 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 11-06-2010 5:31 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 144 (590191)
11-06-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
11-05-2010 12:35 AM


Re: Salinity is really not a dating technique...
Even assuming that the ocean salinity age estimate were valid, it isn't really a dating technique is it? We could say that the oceans are less than ninety something million years old, but we cannot date anything else.

Read my very first post in this thread, to see how this ocean salinity issue fits in the whole web of things. I never pretended that this was a dating technique that could be applied on a wide range of things.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2010 12:35 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2010 6:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 54 of 144 (590192)
11-06-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Zubbbra25
11-05-2010 3:21 AM


Slevesque, these are the same old pratts that are shown everywhere... All they do is show 'what ifs'. I mean they're still using magnetic decay as a 'proof'?

That's because while talkorigins still talk about Barnes 30 year old arguments as if they were still the cutting-edge creationist view, while on the other end of the spectrum, creationists actually have continued to develop the idea and answer the critics.

If, on the other hand, you could show using various independant methods for instance, that every stratigraphic layer was 4350 years old as consistent with the flud, and all fossils found within those layers was 4350 years old. That would be an interesting case. The case of 'what ifs' doesn't work. If you claim the earth is 6000 years old, the burden of proof is on you. And EVERY dating method you employ needs to be consistent with this. You can not pick and choose.

Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time.

Also, notice I haven't used a single 'what if' the whole time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 AM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 5:20 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-06-2010 5:57 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2010 6:03 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 144 (590193)
11-06-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
11-05-2010 9:01 AM


And the accumulation of aluminum in the oceans gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth - very young. Like less than 150 years, Slevesque.

And that age is confirmed to be true, because you don't know a single person who worked on clipper ships before 1900.

Your salt argument is just this absurd.

You'll have to show me your math doc, 'cause I do think that if you take the input and the OUTPUT of Aluminium in the ocean, it comes around at a near equilibrium.

Which isn't the case with Sodium. Which is why the argument is based on sodium accumulation, not aluminium accumulation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2010 9:01 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 144 (590194)
11-06-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
11-05-2010 3:21 PM


What are the assumptions and why are they wrong?

I have shown why the assumptions of salinity dating are wrong, so why don't you try and do the same for U/Pb dating of zircons?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't very impressed by your total misunderstanding of the issue, when you uterly destroyed a 'salinity concentration' strawman.

I know salinity changes when you had water, but I also know it doesn't change the amount of Na+ in the water.

AbE: Let's discuss the salty oceans first, then we'll talk about radiometric dating and how the helium diffusion in zircons comes into play.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12677
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 57 of 144 (590196)
11-06-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:07 PM


Saline Giants
slevesque writes:

Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model.

Sure. Let's start with the saline giants.

Dr A writes:

Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood?

I'm fascinated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:07 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 144 (590198)
11-06-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 12:14 AM


But however rare and exceptional these circumstances may have been, they remain of significance because what was rare and exceptional about them was that they involved the deposition of staggeringly huge amount of halites. The Louann Salt, for example, covers 800,000 square kilometers and is four kilometers deep. That's seven quadrillion tonnes of salt. Are we meant to ignore that simply because the time it spent forming was brief compared to the vast extent of geological time?

Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed:

quote:
B4. Halite Deposition. Many have assumed that the major pathway for Na+ removal from today's ocean is the deposition of the mineral halite. However, the major halite deposits accumulate currently from concentrated river water on the continents, not from the ocean. Modern marine sedimentary deposits are nearly devoid of halite. Recent marine salt flats and coastal lagoons occur along the Persian Gulf, along the Gulf of California, and on the west coast of Australia, but they have very meager deposits of halite. When halite is deposited in marine salt flats and coastal lagoons, freshening of the brine after deposition often redissolves the halite. Solution of halite in seawater occurs because seawater is very undersaturated in both Na+ and Cl-. In fact seawater could contain 20 times its present concentration of Na+ before deposition of halite would occur. Thus, modern sedimentary conditions seem to prevent large, permanent accumulation of halite in marine environments. The world inventory of modern marine halite deposits must be accumulating today at a rate of less than 1 x 108 kg/yr. Thus, the flux of Na+ in modern marine halite deposition is: B4 < 4 x 107 kg/yr. Today's oceanic output of Na+ as halite is trivial when compared to the modern river input.

quote:
Evolutionists have claimed that the process of halite deposition (B4) is much different today than in the past. They admit that modern marine halite deposits are of trivial volume, but attribute ancient massive halite deposits to short, irregularly occurring episodes. Drever, Li and Maynard speak for many evolutionists who believe: "...such events appear to be well able to absorb the river excess over long periods of time ...... [46].

Na+ in earth's halite deposits is a relatively small sink for Na+, as can be appreciated by "time averaging" it over the supposed duration of the deposits. The present inventory of rock salt in the earth's strata contains about 4.4x 1018 kg of Na+ [47] which is 30% of the mass of Na+ in the ocean. Dividing the present mass of Na+ in global rock salt (4.4 x 1018 kg) by the supposed duration of the Phanerozoic deposits (6 x 108 yr) gives an average rate of Na+ removal for the Phanerozoic of 7.3 x 109 kg/yr. This flux is an order of magnitude less than the sea spray output process (B1.".) and cannot serve to balance during long time intervals any of the major input processes (A1min, A2min, A3min or A10min). Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that the "time averaged" halite output contains a significant error. No major quantity of halite in the earth's crust could have escaped our detection. Because halite is dominantly a basinal deposit on continents, it is unlikely that any major quantity has been extracted by subduction from the crust into the mantle.

We can estimate B4max by an analysis of halite deposits of the Permian System. The Permian contains the world's thickest and most extensive marine halite deposits. Of the 4.4 x 1018 kg of Na+ in the earth's rock salt, 1.0 x 1018 kg (23%) resides in Permian rock salt [48]. Assuming that 50% of the Permian halite strata have survived erosion (a good estimate based on the continental exposure of Permian basinal deposits), the original Permian Na+ mass would be 2 x 1018 kg. The "time averaged" maximum rate of removal of Na+ by halite deposition is estimated in reference to the supposed 50 million year duration of the Permian Period. The maximum rate of Na+ removal by marine halite deposition (B4max) is 4.0 x 1010 kg/yr [49]. The rate is only 67% of the present river input of Na+ derived weathering of silicates (A2). Even more interesting is the observation that B4max is about half the present river flux derived from solution of continental chloride minerals (A3).

Past halite deposition (B4max) is not the major process that has been supposed: it ranks third behind past sea spray (B1max) and cation exchange (B2max). Halite in the earth has not been the major sink for Na+ generated by supposed hundreds of millions of years of continental weathering.


http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html

It's as though someone observed that I was not presently eating, and concluded that I must have starved to death years ago. I point out that I spend at least half an hour a day shoveling food into my mouth. He replies that the fact that I rarely eat (only about 2% of the time, as I admit) does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes the current conditions are "representative of how it has generally always been".

Yes ... me not eating is "representative of how it has generally always been" ... but the exceptions, however rare by comparison, are the times that I spend eating.

Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions')

Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood?

I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess.

I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 5:48 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 8:54 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 65 by jar, posted 11-06-2010 9:08 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 9438
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 59 of 144 (590200)
11-06-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by slevesque
11-06-2010 4:57 PM


slevesque writes:

ringo writes:

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


This just shows you don't really want to have an intelligent discussion. Because I give three back to back replies right, trying to get w worthwhile discussion going, and you come in with this nonesense that I ''run away''.

You quote me and yet you don't address what you quoted.

Here's what I said in Message 43:

quote:
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.

That's what you're running away from. You claim that you "could" do a correlation thread like RAZD's but you won't because we'd "probably start by taking each one individually, and show where [we] think the reasoning is flawed in each one."

Yes, that's exactly what we'd do, because that's how intelligent discussion works. If you are interested in intelligent discussion, you need to address the inconsistencies in each of your methods and the inconsistencies between your methods.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 4:57 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12677
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 60 of 144 (590203)
11-06-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:24 PM


Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed:

It is. And in just the way that I criticized. I quote:

quote:
However, the major halite deposits accumulate currently from concentrated river water on the continents, not from the ocean. Modern marine sedimentary deposits are nearly devoid of halite.

You see? Because it isn't happening now somehow we can discount the known, certain, indisputable fact that it happened in the past. Quadrillions of tonnes of salt are just so much chopped liver.

Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions')

Which would be a fair analogy if I claimed that the formation of saline giants was the only or principal output of sodium.

To continue your analogy, the proposition that I eat an apple a day would not contradict the proposition that I also eat a three-course dinner every day.

I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess.

To call that guess "random" is much too kind. I can think of plenty of other less flattering adjectives.

Try again. The Louann Salt is four kilometers deep. The evaporation of a kilometer of seawater would produce a mere fourteen meters of minerals. And you suggest that this saline giant was produced by a lot of rain. Of water. Which dissolves water-soluble minerals. Such as salt.

Do I wake or sleep?

I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.

Also, let us know if you stumble across anything in "flood geology" having any predictive power whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by slevesque, posted 11-07-2010 3:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
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