Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 10:19 PM
129 online now:
dwise1, edge, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 122 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,579 Year: 10,185/21,208 Month: 3,272/2,674 Week: 688/961 Day: 150/151 Hour: 1/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only)
Arphy
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 16 of 51 (536575)
11-24-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
11-22-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Clearing things up
Hi NosyNed

Hmmm, you seem to have missed the point that i was trying to make.
Namely that it has often been said (e.g. on this forum and your post seems to suggest it as well) that when creationists debate evolutionists they should not bring up anything to do with abiogenesis or cosmic evolution (sometimes geology is added as well) because it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Yet the ironic thing is that AS in their opening list of claims make clear references to abiogenesis and cosmic evolution. Why did they do this? Then, in the second essay they give CMI a telling off for bringing up the subjects when they (AS) did so as well! What sort of a tactic is that?

As for CMI trying to make an "attempt to distract from the weakness of support for their own ideas by trying to find unanswered questions" is in my opinion not true. CMI and myself are very convinced that there is strong support for our ideas. I don't think that saying "Aha, you don't know how that happened so it must be goddidit!" is good logic. But, since when is it wrong to point out weaknesses in a theory? And since when is it wrong to reject a theory if it's flaws are too great?

Also if it is scientifically valid to conduct research into finding evidence which supports materialistic abiogenesis, why is it suddenly unscientific to conduct research into finding evidence that supports special creation? Is evidence and research only valid if it supports a materialistic view? If so, then this is no longer hunting for the truth, but rather promoting one theory at the exclusion of another.

My point in writing the above was not to necessarily get into abiogenesis or cosmic evolution but rather to try and quieten some of the comments about "bad debating" aimed at creationists.

I think there has been quite a call from many people on this site (and from AS)that more emphasis is put on providing positive evidence for biblical creation. While biological arguments can certainly be used as corroborative evidence, many arguments can be used for creation in general. Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood. Therefore i would like to focus on these topics. Could be a bit broad at the moment so will try to narrow it down with specific examples later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-22-2009 6:24 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2009 2:06 PM Arphy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 17 of 51 (536687)
11-24-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Arphy
11-24-2009 4:03 AM


Bringing up Extraneous Areas
Yet the ironic thing is that AS in their opening list of claims make clear references to abiogenesis and cosmic evolution. Why did they do this? Then, in the second essay they give CMI a telling off for bringing up the subjects when they (AS) did so as well! What sort of a tactic is that?

This is just one of many things that the AS did poorly. They should wait for the other side of the debate to wander off topic before reacting proactively. However, since they know that the creationists pretty well always bring this up and attempt to muddy the waters maybe they just wanted to save time.

But, since when is it wrong to point out weaknesses in a theory? And since when is it wrong to reject a theory if it's flaws are too great?

You are correct. There are two sides to the discussion; supporting your own ideas and attacking the ideas you disagree with. Unfortunately, the CMI didn't supply any support for their own ideas. I'm unclear as to whether this thread should be broadened to doing what they didn't do or simply discussing what both sides did say.

I'm game for either.

Also if it is scientifically valid to conduct research into finding evidence which supports materialistic abiogenesis, why is it suddenly unscientific to conduct research into finding evidence that supports special creation? Is evidence and research only valid if it supports a materialistic view? If so, then this is no longer hunting for the truth, but rather promoting one theory at the exclusion of another.

It is, in my opinion, perfectly valid to conduct research into supporting your views. I'm still waiting for it. Where did CMI refer to this research and it's results?

Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood. Therefore i would like to focus on these topics. Could be a bit broad at the moment so will try to narrow it down with specific examples later.

We have had a number of threads on the flood on EvC. Should we turn this thread into another one? You may if you wish and we'll see how it goes. You should note that this area has been gone over a lot and no one answers the questions raised. Perhaps you're willing to try.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Arphy, posted 11-24-2009 4:03 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 11-24-2009 11:26 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 18 of 51 (536757)
11-24-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
11-24-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Bringing up Extraneous Areas
Hi NosyNed
Unfortunately, the CMI didn't supply any support for their own ideas.
And the AS did?

Anyway, I think that CMI did supply support for the ideas they presented. Note, what do you count as positive evidence for a theory? Can you call something as positive evidence for a theory if it is compatible with an otherwise conflicting theory? I don't really think so. That is why I think it is necessary for creationists to show that not only is the evidence consistent with Biblical creation but is also incompatible with a naturalistic explanation.

On the age of the earth AS expects CMI to come out with some sort of research that uses a "clock" which says that the earth is 6000 years old. This is just not possible, because every such natural clock is based on big assumptions. The date of approx. 6000 years comes from simple calculations using the dates and ages provided in the bible and other historical sources. Although even here certain assumptions are used, variancies if source information still do not allow for an excessive increase beyond this age.
What I do find legitimate is when research is done that takes a wide variety of assumptions and possibilities into account. This type of research allows us to calculate maximum or minimum ages for the earth. CMI certainly provide evidence to support a "young" earth by using research (including references to the RATE project) which shows that the maximum age of the earth does not fit with the naturalistic ideas such as long-age geology or evolutionary biology. Yet the evidence does fit within Biblical creationist geology and biology. Note, that this doesn't necessarily completly negate a naturalistic explanation, but to say that naturalistic biology and geology will someday find a way to incorporate the "young-ness" of the earth, is really just special pleading (also see edit). Therefore I think it is reasonable to say that evidence for a "young" earth is evidence for Biblical creation.

There are a number of other arguments which are positive evidence for creation even though they do not negate a naturalistic explanation if special pleading is used. The Thermodynamics arguments are one such example. They are good evidence that a creator "started" the universe. To say that matter and energy spontaneously came from nothing or that somehow the thermodynamics laws for some reason worked in reverse as the AS suggest or that someday we will find a naturalistic explanation is really just another case of special pleading.

CMI also show support of the Biblical model in the area of Biological changes by showing that variation due to mutations causes "downhill" changes. This is similar to the thermodynamics argument in that a creator is needed to create the initial organisms from which the present organisms evolved from in a "downhill" fashion. This in turn is also evidence against any naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis or any arguments based on an "uphill" explanation for life. The creation model also make sense of evidence such as irriducible complexity and design while all naturalistic explanations fail.

Traditions from around the world give corroborative evidence for the truth of the Genesis account. As in a judicial court room the corroborative evidence of many witnesses provides powerful evidence for the authenticity of an account. This is a strong case for Biblical creation.

BTW, in this post I basically stuck to what was in the debate. I think maybe for now it might be good to stick to the areas brought up in the CMI-AS debate as best as possible. However, i think eventually the discussion will demand that we move into evidence and arguments not mentioned in the debate.
Would you like to do a post that shows that AS provide positive evidence that "the universe and life evolve[ed]", as per the Question posed by the Sydney Morning Herald to kick off the debate? I think it would be helpful.

ABE: Also note that i am not saying that therefore a scientist with a naturalistic viewpoint should not try to find naturalistic answers (although I think it is a bit of a waste of time and money). But to turn around and say "I am working on the problem and one day I will solve the problem and therefore you cannot say that your theory, which may be consistent with evidence at the moment, is better than mine". Using evidence that you may find in the future is not a particularly strong argument in the present.

Edited by Arphy, : added edit to help clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2009 2:06 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2023 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 51 (536956)
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Helium retention in Zircon crystals
Ok, so I'm going to start off I guess.

First some presentation. My name is Sabin Levesque. 19 years old, currently studying Maths and Physics at the university of Montreal (first session). French-Canadian. Creationists, with the usual more conservative views on the Bible. Raised in a christian home.

I decided to take the Helium retention in deep Zircons, introduced by CMI in their opening essay under the point numer 5, ''age of things''.

I decided to take this topi because it wasan example of an experiment being conducted under a creationist hypothesis, with prediction. Hence falling into the 'testability' criterion the AS were talking about in their own opening essay.

In short, this is how it goes. They started out with a hypothesis called ''accelerated nuclear decay'' which is the idea that the decay rates were not constant in the past, and had in fact being accelerated. They found a way to test the idea with the radiogenic helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals. Before hand, they made predictions of what the diffusion rates should be in with one or more accelerated nuclear decay events in the past 6000 years. Using the same equations, they calculated the predictions of a long-age hypothesis with constant decay rates. These results were published in 2000.

They commissioned one of the world's leading experimenter in this field to test the helium diffusion rates of the zircon crystals they had retrieved from the Fenton Hill in New mexico. The experimenter didn't know about the results they expected nor who they were, and so htis was a true blind test.

They recieved the results in 2003, and to their delight it fit perfectly with their prediction, and a difference factor of 100 000 with the long-age predictions:

In red and pink their predictions for both models. In blue the data they received. Their results appeared in five technical publications, one of which is none-creationist. (Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Fenton Hill granodiorite, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46)) Dunno if it is peer-review though.

The problem now comes at a higher level of difficulty. If someone claims that the creation model is faulty, why then did it almost perfectly predit the diffusion rates ?

Obviously, these results brought a LOT of criticism, which was to be expected. In 2008, Russell Humphreys (the primary responsible of this research) made a summary of all the criticism and the answers he provided to each one: http://creation.com/...g-world-continues-to-confound-critics.

I personnally read almost all of the Henke criticism from talkorigins, and Humphreys answers. Most of it is about details about procedures and references, and about rock identifications. His initial essay is 15pages long.

His most signifiant criticism is about the fact that the diffusion results were taken in a vacuum rather than then with the in situ pressure. This is found randomnly throughout his text, usually in order to boost the impacts of other factors. Of course, this is not really criticising the workd done by the RATE team, but rather the experimenter who did tested the diffusion rates.

Humphreys responded to this argument here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp. Showing that the in vacuum results are totally acceptable, and that Henke's argument is faulty in many occasions.

I have the feeling I haven't been clear at all in explaining all this. The creation.com article linked above does a far better job of explaining everything. I think this is a good example of a creation hypothesis making a prediction.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2009 8:56 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 11-27-2009 1:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 12:34 PM slevesque has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 51 (537150)
11-27-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
Sorry I'm taking a long time with this. It needs considerable research and I'm dealing with some things right now.

However there is an issue of the context. Even if this could be shown to be apparently correct in the measurements made there is the problem of it being an extreme outlier. There are many other methods of measuring age which support an age much, much older. With the others in such good agreement one is forced to suspect an error in this one odd-man-out.

The other area of context is that for this to remain only accepted by the handful of researchers who also happen to be YECs and not accepted by 10,000s of other geologists you have to assume extreme incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the vast majority. This seems somewhat unlikely.

For those reasons it is worth looking more closely at these results since there is a high probability of error in what you have referred to.

It's my job to get back to you but it'll be some days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-26-2009 1:31 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 11-27-2009 3:48 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 21 of 51 (537189)
11-27-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
I second NosyNed. You've raised an interesting argument, and you wrote a very nice post presenting both the argument itself and the critique. I'm currently a bit busy in real life, but I'll be back once I've got the time.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-26-2009 1:31 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2023 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 51 (537211)
11-27-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
11-27-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
I don't think the results contradict other dating methods.

These Zircons have been dated to 1,5 billion years old. (With Uranium-Lead)

The issue is rather if this 1,5billions years worth of nuclear decay has been accelerated. The way to find this out is to look at the radiogenic Helium, since it's diffusion rate is not directly linked to the nuclear decay rate.

So it doesn't really come in contradiction with the other dating methods. They had a hypothesis which was that decay rates had ben accelerated in the past, and they tested it in this way.

And you can take your time, lot's of things to read about of course, since not only the research is quite long, but the criticism is even longer. But I think the exchange from Henke and Humphreys deals with pretty much every aspect. (Although Henke brings up many aspects that do not interefere with the data: Old russian measurements, identification of rock, etc.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2009 8:56 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 1:24 AM slevesque has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 51 (537265)
11-28-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
11-27-2009 3:48 PM


Dating methods
But not all methods involve radioactive decay and it is very wrong to say all decay methods are the same and we have calibrated some and shown that over periods much, much longer than 6,000 years they are correct.

So you still have to problem of explaining not just this one case by tying it in to all of the others.

I suggest you look over:
Message 1

All of the correlations there have to be explained. Note it is the correlations between methods that is the tricky bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 11-27-2009 3:48 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM NosyNed has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2023 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 51 (537272)
11-28-2009 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
11-28-2009 1:24 AM


Re: Dating methods
Of course, we can't go through the length of the other thread, I think you will agree with that. Correlation of course, can seem very impressive, and as you have noted, it is the tricky part.

But could it be that it reveals that there is a common faulty assumption behind all these dating methods ?

Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 1:24 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 10:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 1:06 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 25 of 51 (537397)
11-28-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
11-28-2009 2:28 AM


Correlations
But could it be that it reveals that there is a common faulty assumption behind all these dating methods ?

You could offer your idea of what could be common between counting, using the calendar (historical records), beta decay, alpha decay and gama decay.

Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.

Two points here:
1) This sounds like a fun side thread since it isn't something that came up in the debate. (Though if we all agree then I guess anything could be in here).

2) Even if you can offer multiple line of evidence that correlate on the same maximum date (which I don't think you can) that isn't nearly (not by a mile) as powerful as one which correlates date by date, year by year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 11-29-2009 1:24 AM NosyNed has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 26 of 51 (537497)
11-29-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
11-28-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Correlations
Even if you can offer multiple line of evidence that correlate on the same maximum date (which I don't think you can)

Why would we have to do that? Even if you have some methods which give approx. the same max date, this is little more than coincident (or the two methods are related). You will always find a different method which disagrees with your initial method. Anyway, What would it mean if every method had the same max date?

that isn't nearly (not by a mile) as powerful as one which correlates date by date, year by year.
Well, I don't think long-agers have found this, but feel free to shows us in more detail what you mean. As i said before, Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.

Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 10:39 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 12:44 PM Arphy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 27 of 51 (537878)
12-01-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
I've spent some time reviewing the arguments put foreward.

As best as I can tell Humphreys has not at all answered the criticisms of the zircon-helium paper.

He is accused of really lousy geology such as being careless in specimen collection, not knowing what rocks or even kind of rocks he is dealing with and making up names of geological formations.

He doesn't not answer the issue of diffusion under different conditions and ignores warnings about that in published geological work.

His past has some poor work which makes these conclusions a bit suspect as well.

Given all of that and the context of so very many other measurements of age it seems very reasonable to conclude that this is in error. I'll get back to the context of other measurements now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-26-2009 1:31 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 12-02-2009 1:44 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 28 of 51 (537879)
12-01-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
11-29-2009 1:24 AM


Re: Correlations
Why would we have to do that? Even if you have some methods which give approx. the same max date, this is little more than coincident (or the two methods are related). You will always find a different method which disagrees with your initial method. Anyway, What would it mean if every method had the same max date?

You seem confused. You are the one who said:

Arphy writes:

Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.

So you need to support that.

Well, I don't think long-agers have found this, but feel free to shows us in more detail what you mean. As i said before, Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.

So you agree that the correlation of results in detail rather than just a maximum date is very powerful?

You are, of course, utterly wrong; there are many independent methods which agree very well.

The "assumptions" have been checked out and there is good, strong reasons for accepting them as being the case.

If you think that "I don't think so." is an adequate argument then I guess you are finished now. But you are not impressing any thinking individual. Perhaps slevesque needs to invite someone else into the debate to help out.

You can, if you really want to discuss the issues. Supply the "assumptions" that you feel are wrong and exactly why you think they are wrong.

Then you can explain the rather detailed correlations given in RAZD's very strong thread at:
Message 1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 11-29-2009 1:24 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 3:44 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 51 (537880)
12-01-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
11-28-2009 2:28 AM


Independent methods
Your problem with the correlations can be viewed through a couple of analogies:

If I walk into a clock store with a couple of hundred clocks on the wall, free standing in cases and on shelves and look at the time they are reading there are a number of possibilities:

1) Most may not be moving at all. No one bothered to wind them or plug them in or supply batteries.

2) However if they are all ticking, clicking and whirring away I may notice that they don't all tell the same time. Perhaps they supply many different times. Then I notice that more than half of them are all reading the same time to within a few minutes while the others read all kinds of totally different times.

Is there anything I can conclude from this?

It seems highly likely that the hundred or so clocks that agree were not set randomly. They are very likely to have been set at the same time and to approximately the same time.

Then I have to judge if they are reading the correct time. Can I? Well, not without making judgments about what people do when they set a bunch of clocks in a store. There is at least a pretty good chance that they are reading about the right time but [i]for our issue about dating that doesn't matter![/qs].

What I can judge with a reasonably high degree of confidence is that they have all counted off the same amount of time since they were set. I have to get pretty creative to come up with other scenarios that work. Remember that in our case of geologic dating I can know if someone has been resetting the clocks or not so that isn't an explanation for the match of the clocks in the store.

Another, related, analogy is if I wish to measure the passage of some period of time (say a few hours or days).

I use a water clock, a pendulum clock, a silicon crystal clock, and atomic clock and an hour glass full of sand. Each of these has been calibrated and some idea of its error determined.

If I then measure a duration of time with them all and they all agree to within the range of errors of each type do I have a high degree of confidence in my measurement of the duration or not?

If some disagree, let's say the pendulum clock says 27 hours and the others all say about 35 hours (+- 2 hours for the water clock, +- 3 seconds for the crystal, +- .000000003 seconds for the atomic clock and +- 32 minutes for the hour class), what can I conclude? Do I decide I have no idea of the time or that the pendulum clock is correct? What actions should I take to resolve the issue?

What if the pendulum clock and the hour glass and the water clock all have wildly different times but the others agree to within measurement errors? Are there any assumptions I have made which might not apply (e.g., there have been no earthquakes with in the last 2 days)?

Would you like to discuss these analogies first before we move on to the range of dating methods?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 4:20 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 30 of 51 (537905)
12-01-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
12-01-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Correlations
You are the one who said:
It was slevesque in message 24, but anyway. Here is the opening summary from RAZD's post
•Message 2 - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.

•Message 3 - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).

•Message 4 - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).

•Message 5 - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).

•Message 6 - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).

•Message 7 - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).

•Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).

•Message 9 - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data

•Message 10 - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).

•Message 11 - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.

•Message 12 - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

•Message 13 - just for fun.

Note that not all the minimmum ages for the earth are not the same. It is not necessary to have exactly the same minimum date for all the methods for RAZD to make his point. I was just pointing out the same thing in relation to maximum ages. They don't have to point to the exact same maximum age for the point to be made. i.e. They correlate in terms of "young" or "old" earth, but not in terms of exact dates, and they don't need to.

So you agree that the correlation of results in detail rather than just a maximum date is very powerful?
Yes, RAZD's arguments are powerful if correct, so I have been looking into some of them. But what would it mean (what can we infer) if all max dates are the same? I don't know.

If you think that "I don't think so." is an adequate argument then I guess you are finished now.
It wasn't an argument, it was a challenge for you to bring evidence supporting your claim. I guess it wasn't really necessary to write that phrase as you already know that "I don't think so".

But, If I may say so, your statement

The "assumptions" have been checked out and there is good, strong reasons for accepting them as being the case.
is also a bit weak. What do you expect me to do with a statement like that? Take it on trust, and throw everything i believe out the window? I'm sure even you would find that an irrational thing to do. If you want to state it and then back it up with evidence then i am willing to listen and discuss it. Fair?

Supply the "assumptions" that you feel are wrong and exactly why you think they are wrong.
You bring the dating method you feel is powerful and I'll bring a critique of the assumptions used in that method. Fair enough?

I am slightly shocked that you find my posts inadequte, I hope this post has clarified some things.

Sincerely,

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 12:44 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 5:09 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017