Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 1498 (663734)
05-26-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:44 AM


Re: Gradualism still not the topic
Hi again Jzyehoshua
What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant?
See the thread Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?.
Now see if you can get back to the issue of correlations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:44 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 107 of 1498 (663735)
05-26-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:44 AM


Re: Gradualism
What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant?
That they don't change. And scientists from the Curies on have tried to get them to change --- they tried heating them, pressurizing them, combining them in different molecules and so forth; they didn't just assume that the rates were constant, they did everything they could think of to make 'em change. And short of throwing radioisotopes into a nuclear reactor or something, the decay rates do seem to be very stable.
A better quote would be, "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that SUVs are not big.
Well that would be equally silly. Unless there is some causal connection between the size of A and the size of B, the size of A is perfectly irrelevant to the size of B, which has to be found out by looking at the size of B. If someone really thought that SUVs aren't big, then it would be a fatuous waste of time to point out that elephants are big. He'd ask you what in the world that has to do with anything, and you'd be in the embarrassing position of looking like a greater fool than someone who thinks SUVs are tiny.
You Evolutionists are assuming Evolutionary Rates could speed up under Punctuated Equilibrium, but don't want to accept that isotope decay rates could have sped up.
On the one hand you say the present is the key to the past and assume isotope decay rates were the same as today's. But on the other hand when today's rates are too fast to allow an ancient earth (which Microevolution rates are per here) you assume today's have sped up for some reason. And when the fossil record shows stasis and lack of transitions rather than gradual transitions, you assume evolution suddenly sped up in the past and didn't show up in the fossil record, per Punctuated Equilibrium.
You don't seem to have grasped punctuated equilibrium, but I'll let that slide for now. This thread is for geology.
There's no evidence of decay rates speeding up. Also, no mechanism. Also, don't you guys need them to have slowed down? Your problem with reality (in this particular case) is that there is evidence of more decay than can be fit into your chronological fantasies. This means that in order to daydream that you're right in spite of all the evidence, you have to imagine that there was more decay in the past, not less.
You want to say one had to remain constant and say the other situations were variable, just whatever will make Evolutionary Theory work, in other words. To me it looks inconsistent.
"You want to say that mice are small and elephants are big, just whatever is supported by all the evidence. To me it looks inconsistent."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:44 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 1498 (663736)
05-26-2012 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:57 AM


Re: Gradualism is still not the topic
Hi once again Jzyehoshua
Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" says the following on pg. 87:
Curiously, still nothing to do with the correlations issue on this thread.
Can I assume that you cannot refute the correlations?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:57 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 109 of 1498 (663738)
05-26-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
05-26-2012 8:02 AM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Please don't go off topic with more extraneous distractions.
You need to show how this affects the correlations, otherwise all you are doing is throwing sand against the wall to see what sticks.
The constancy of Uniformitarianism is acknowledged here on this University of Tennessee page, and its presumptions as central to Dendrochronology:
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
quote:
Principles of Dendrochronology
The Uniformitarian Principle
This principle states that physical and biological processes that link current environmental processes with current patterns of tree growth must have been in operation in the past. In other words, "the present is the key to the past," originally stated by James Hutton in 1785. However, dendrochronology adds a new "twist" to this principle: "the past is the key to the future." In other words, by knowing environmental conditions that operated in the past (by analyzing such conditions in tree rings), we can better predict and/or manage such environmental conditions in the future. Hence, by knowing what the climate-tree growth relationship is in the 20th century, we can reconstruct climate from tree rings well before weather records were ever kept!
For example, the graph above shows a long-term precipitation reconstruction for northern New Mexico based on tree rings (click on the image to see an enlarged version of the graph). The reconstruction was developed by calibrating the widths of tree rings from the 1900s with rainfall records from the 1900s. Because we assume that conditions must have been similar in the past, we can then use the widths of tree rings as a proxy (or substitute) for actual rainfall amounts prior to the historical record.
However, the whole dating methodology revolves around the final sentence, the "assum[ption] that conditions must have been similar in the past".
As seen from the page, to definitely prove the method, you must first prove conclusively the assumptions upon which the method is based, namely:
(a) Rings had to have indicated one-year periods each time, and could not have grown faster.
(b) Trees can be effectively cross-matched.
(c) Trends regarding precipitation and other data are being effectively derived and not mistakenly assuming based on current circumstances.
Look, this has always struck me as a pretty esoteric, arcane attempt at fringe 'science' for which there's been a dearth of reliable information. Many of your early sources no longer work meaning I have to do entirely new searches to cross-check some of your points. And Evolution has a long history of selectively interpreting evidence to result in bias, like with Peking Man or Lucy (which we just recognized recently walked upright after all unlike the original press announcements).
For me to decide this is solid methodology I need to understand why they are so sure rings represented the exact amounts of times claimed. Is there a source for your claim that they represent just one year each? How can this be sure? So much seems likely to rest on this and the ability to cross-check reliably between trees. I understand the concept, look for evidence of droughts or fires that show up across multiple trees. But I'm also concerned a biased researcher could just selectively interpret two trees with different droughts as being cross-checked dishonestly. It could too easily be open to interpretation (like the fossil record or phylogenetic trees which are VERY speculative).
I'm used to seeing shoddy research from Evolutionists with 90% speculation to 10% fact and I'm not going to easily accept this situation is different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:56 AM Jzyehoshua has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 10:26 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 12:25 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 110 of 1498 (663741)
05-26-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 8:43 AM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Well, you can always fantasize without evidence that trees grew differently in the past. Creationists are good at unevidenced fantasies, knock yourself out.
But then you have to explain the correlations. You have to suppose that everything that gives us clues to chronology worked differently in the past, and in such a way that all these very different methods of discovering chronology somehow conspired together to paint us a consistent picture.
Now, why should that be? Is it not more parsimonious to conclude that the reason the picture is consistent is that it's true, rather than that dozens of different physical processes somehow just happen to agree on something that's false?
Look, this has always struck me as a pretty esoteric, arcane attempt at fringe 'science' for which there's been a dearth of reliable information.
And yet it strikes scientists completely differently. Maybe they know something you don't, such as science.
---
I shall pass over your absurd and grotesque mistakes about hominid fossils, since this is not on topic. But I would once more suggest that you stop making things up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 8:43 AM Jzyehoshua has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 111 of 1498 (663750)
05-26-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 8:43 AM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
JZ writes:
I need to understand why they are so sure rings represented the exact amounts of times claimed. Is there a source for your claim that they represent just one year each?
Trees growing in climates with seasons - Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn - grow in the spring and are dormant in winter. It's quite easy to understand.
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia
But your task here is not to nitpick methods but to explain why they all corroborate each other.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 8:43 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:46 PM Tangle has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 112 of 1498 (663752)
05-26-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:44 AM


Decay constants
The RATE team, with over a million dollars of creationist money, set out to prove that decay constants weren't constant.
They failed.
Read a summary of the results below:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE Project
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:44 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:58 PM Coyote has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 113 of 1498 (663756)
05-26-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 8:43 AM


age and correlations between age counting methods
Hi Jzyehoshua
The constancy of Uniformitarianism is acknowledged here on this University of Tennessee page, and its presumptions as central to Dendrochronology:
quote:
... Because we assume that conditions must have been similar in the past, we can then use the widths of tree rings as a proxy (or substitute) for actual rainfall amounts prior to the historical record.
Curiously, we are not discussing rainfall and their estimation from the width of tree rings, but the minimum age of the earth as determined by the count of the annual rings.
You will note that they do not say that the number of rings is assumed, just that the climate based on the width of the rings.
However, the whole dating methodology revolves around the final sentence, the "assum[ption] that conditions must have been similar in the past". ...
That similar effects will have similar causes ... unless you can show some mechanism to change them ... is a valid assumption unless you can show otherwise: the onus is on you to provide a mechanism to change them.
As seen from the page, to definitely prove the method, you must first prove conclusively the assumptions upon which the method is based, namely: ...
Amusingly I do not need to prove anything: what I have provided you with is a set of data that shows a correlation within 0.5% between four different dendrochronologies from 4 different localities in the world, 4 different ecologies, and 3 different species, and this correlation is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the method.
Your job is to show not only how this can be wrong, but wrong in such a way that results in this correlation.
... (a) Rings had to have indicated one-year periods each time, and could not have grown faster.
And your job is to show where when and how they would transition from annual rings to some other pattern without it being noticeable in the tree ring patterns.
... (b) Trees can be effectively cross-matched.
Again, I have given you the data that shows a correlation within 0.5% between four different dendrochronologies from 4 different localities in the world, 4 different ecologies, and 3 different species, and this correlation is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the method.
... (c) Trends regarding precipitation and other data are being effectively derived and not mistakenly assuming based on current circumstances.
Sadly, for you, this is completely irrelevant to the age issue. You're just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks rather than really addressing the issue of the correlations.
Look, this has always struck me as a pretty esoteric, arcane attempt at fringe 'science' for which there's been a dearth of reliable information. ...
Your undereducation in any particular field of science is not my problem. Certainly I will take the evidenced conclusions from an expert in the field over the opinion of someone who is more concerned with faith than facts.
... Many of your early sources no longer work meaning I have to do entirely new searches to cross-check some of your points. ...
Let me know which links are broken and I will see about fixing them.
Yes, the original post was written in March 2004, and not one creationist has been able to show how the age can be wrong and the correlations still occur. Not one. In over 1,000 posts to date, not one correlation has been explained. Not one.
... And Evolution has a long history of selectively interpreting evidence to result in bias, like with Peking Man or Lucy (which we just recognized recently walked upright after all unlike the original press announcements).
A silly claim, seeing as both were originally claimed to walk upright. Are you sure you are reading the scientific articles or the creationist ones?
And fascinatingly we are not talking about evolution, but the sciences related to determining the age of the earth. If you are surprised that interpretations change in science when new information is provided, then you do not understand science.
If you want to talk about hoaxes then try Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes .
For me to decide this is solid methodology I need to understand why they are so sure rings represented the exact amounts of times claimed. Is there a source for your claim that they represent just one year each? How can this be sure? ...
Actually, I could care less how you decide if the methodology is solid, what I need from you is a mechanism that can explain the correlations if it is not due to age.
... So much seems likely to rest on this and the ability to cross-check reliably between trees. I understand the concept, look for evidence of droughts or fires that show up across multiple trees. ...
Again I point out to you that the results of four entirely different dendrochronologies agree within 0.5% on age and on climate effects. Explain how that happens if what you suggest occurs with any significant frequency (if at all).
... But I'm also concerned a biased researcher could just selectively interpret two trees with different droughts as being cross-checked dishonestly. It could too easily be open to interpretation (like the fossil record or phylogenetic trees which are VERY speculative).
Ah yes the old creationist when-in-doubt-claim-conspiracy-to-falsify-data card.
I'm used to seeing shoddy research from Evolutionists with 90% speculation to 10% fact and I'm not going to easily accept this situation is different.
Start a thread on that and see if you can substantiate that assertion.
Meanwhile your task on this thread is to explain the correlations. Something no other creationist has been able to begin to explain.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 8:43 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 114 of 1498 (663774)
05-26-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 8:08 AM


Re: Gradualism
That they don't change. And scientists from the Curies on have tried to get them to change --- they tried heating them, pressurizing them, combining them in different molecules and so forth; they didn't just assume that the rates were constant, they did everything they could think of to make 'em change. And short of throwing radioisotopes into a nuclear reactor or something, the decay rates do seem to be very stable.
Of course they change. Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" acknowledges they change. Volcanism and Beryllium both throw off decay rates. Dalrymple acknowledged they can change, just argued such changes are rare and minute. Lava from Mt. St. Helens for example was dated as hundreds of thousands of years old. Mt. Ngauruhoe's eruption resulted in dating results of 3.5 million years, and both were recent events. The ability for volcanic ash to throw off isotopic decay rates has long been a major point for Creationists:
Radioactive Dating Failure | Answers in Genesis
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions | Answers in Genesis
Debate.org
Beryllium decay rates have been shown to alter specifically.
Brzina radioaktivnog raspada ovisi o kemiji okoline - creation.com
The argument that decay rates can't be altered at all though will prove indefensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:40 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:35 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 115 of 1498 (663775)
05-26-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tangle
05-26-2012 10:26 AM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Trees growing in climates with seasons - Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn - grow in the spring and are dormant in winter. It's quite easy to understand.
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia
But your task here is not to nitpick methods but to explain why they all corroborate each other.
Doesn't that assume seasonal fluctuation consistent with today's? We now know earth was once far more tropical than it is today (source below) so why is it assumed tree rings grew at the same rates? This assumption the present is the key to the past, that we can simply assume the way it is is the way it always was, seems to me a very dangerous fallacy.
Splat Science: Fossilized Raindrops Reveal Early Earth's Hazy Skies | Live Science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 10:26 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 6:05 PM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:09 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 119 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 6:14 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 116 of 1498 (663776)
05-26-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
05-26-2012 10:31 AM


Re: Decay constants
The RATE team, with over a million dollars of creationist money, set out to prove that decay constants weren't constant.
They failed.
Read a summary of the results below:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE Project
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience
I'm always skeptical of a page that quotes a source and then doesn't give a citation link. I checked your ASA page and saw he was claiming the fission tracks in Zircons were acknowledged to show 500 million years worth of radioactive decay. So I hunted down the report for myself just now and double-checked. Turns out Mr. Randy Isaac took the quote entirely out of context when he said,
quote:
"The RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported."
Here are the ICR sources for the report itself:
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II | The Institute for Creation Research
Fission Tracks in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay | The Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/...echnical/Fission-Tracks-in-Zircons.pdf
The last is the report PDF including the quote itself. Here's the full quote, in context:
quote:
"Even so, in spite of this thermal annealing and resetting, there remains sufficient strong evidence to conclude that both the fission tracks and radioisotope ratios in the zircons in the Cambrian Grand Canyon tuff beds record more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay during deposition of the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region. Given the independent evidence that most of this strata sequence was deposited catastrophically during the year-long global Flood about 4500 years ago, then 500 million or more years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay had to have occurred during the Flood year about 4500 years ago. Thus, the fission tracks in the zircons in these tuffs are physical evidence of accelerated nuclear decay."
That's the complete opposite of what Randy Isaac said the report concluded. To me that looks pretty dishonest to misinterpret the report like that. You really should double-check these assertions from now on because that's a pretty good example of dishonest misinterpretation of a paper right there.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:31 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 6:15 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:26 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 6:36 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 117 of 1498 (663777)
05-26-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:46 PM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
JZ writes:
Doesn't that assume seasonal fluctuation consistent with today's? We now know earth was once far more tropical than it is today (source below) so why is it assumed tree rings grew at the same rates?
You're deflecting.
If you want to discuss tree rings start a new thread - your task here is to explain why all the different methods of dating agree with each other.
If they are ALL wrong, why do they agree? Is it a coincidence that all the dating methods are in error for diferent reasons but yet miraculously still agree with each other?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:46 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:13 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 118 of 1498 (663778)
05-26-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:46 PM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
(1) The tropics still have seasons --- the Amazon rainforest, for example, has a wet season and a dry season.
(2) The trees used for dendrochronology do in fact exhibit growth rings.
(3) The trees used in dendrochronology are temperate-zone trees such as pines and oaks.
This assumption the present is the key to the past, that we can simply assume the way it is is the way it always was, seems to me a very dangerous fallacy.
And the name of this "fallacy" is "the scientific method".
We must "assume" that a rule which appears to be generally true is in fact generally true unless and until some evidence of a counterexample is found.
You "assume" that this is the case every day and in every act you take. Not only science, but the everyday actions of your normal life, would be impossible without this "assumption". Without hypocrisy, you cannot drop it just because it disfavors your religious beliefs.
---
But this is by-the-by, you're still not addressing the main point of the thread. You may, as you wish, fantasize that any particular method of chronology is wrong. But how do you suppose that they all went wrong in ways which are consistent with one another? That's the question. Suppose dendrochronology is wrong, why does it agree with radiocarbon dating? If that's wrong, why does it agree with varves? With ice cores? Why do all these very disparate physical processes all give us, not just the wrong dates, but the same wrong dates? Is the natural world involved in some immense conspiracy to deceive us?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:46 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 119 of 1498 (663780)
05-26-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:46 PM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
My understanding is that the seasons have nothing to do with whether the earth's climate overall is more or less tropical - they have to do with a slight wobble in the spin of the earth around its north to south axis - during the months around september to march, this puts the Northern hemisphere closer to the sun than during the months april to august. It's vice versa in the southern hemisphere (hence the reason Father Christmas gets 6 white kangaroos delivering him and presents to kids in Australia in the middle of their summer).
Trees will always do fairly well in a local climate to which they have become accustomed - tropical, temperate, or my own UK climate (99% rainy). But that climate will vary annually between a warmer and a colder situation, dependent upon the tilt on the Earth's north-south axis, which brings that climate futher or nearer to the sun. This annual variation is what produces the rings.
Now then - we do assume a seasonal fluctuation consistent with today's, because we know that axial tilt varies microscopically across hundreds of thousands of years. In other words, annual changes in climate, as a result of axial tilt, have been around as long as trees have. (And that reference to "annual" is so equal to 365.25 days per annum across the whole time that trees have been around as makes no difference). So the rings in tree trunks will not be affected by the fact that a generally more tropical climate would have existed on the Earth in the past - those tropical trees would still have experienced a growing and a non-growing season as a result of that axial tilt. The general climate has no impact on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:46 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 1498 (663781)
05-26-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:58 PM


Re: Decay constants
Nice try, but no cigar.
"Even so, in spite of this thermal annealing and resetting, there remains sufficient strong evidence to conclude that both the fission tracks and radioisotope ratios in the zircons in the Cambrian Grand Canyon tuff beds record more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay during deposition of the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region. Given the independent evidence that most of this strata sequence was deposited catastrophically during the year-long global Flood about 4500 years ago, then 500 million or more years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay had to have occurred during the Flood year about 4500 years ago. Thus, the fission tracks in the zircons in these tuffs are physical evidence of accelerated nuclear decay."
That's the complete opposite of what Randy Isaac said the report concluded. To me that looks pretty dishonest to misinterpret the report like that. You really should double-check these assertions from now on because that's a pretty good example of dishonest misinterpretation of a paper right there.
There is no "independent evidence" for a year-long global flood about 4500 years ago. There is no evidence for that at all! On the other hand, there is massive evidence that there was no global flood about 4500 years ago.
The 500 million years in the Phanerozoic strata sequence is not negated by reference to a flood that never happened. To attempt to use a mythical event such as this "global flood" to calibrate the Phanerozoic strata sequence is just to make things up so it all comes out the way you want. That's the exact opposite of science.
By the way, I have independent evidence from my own archaeological work that there was no global flood about 4500 years ago. A skeleton I dated at 5300 years ago had DNA that matched living individuals in the same area, and that DNA didn't match that of peoples from the Near East. That shows continuity of a human population across the 4500 year line in North America, and that evidence by itself disproves the flood.
There is another similar example from other archaeologists working in the western US that shows continuity from 10,300 years to living individuals. This kind of evidence, in fact, is found all over the world.
(See signature, below.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:02 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024