Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 2:10 AM
62 online now:
GDR, zaius137 (2 members, 60 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,046 Year: 24,887/28,606 Month: 2,188/1,786 Week: 403/647 Day: 8/79 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 19 of 144 (589791)
11-04-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Ok, I'll jump in. Seeing that all the strawmen filled back-patting didn't really make for a worthwhile discussion.

The issue of the age of the earth is two-fold for the creationist. First, he needs to adress the lines of evidence that seem to indicate that the earth is very old. Nowadays this includes predominantly the various radiometric dating methods, but also geologic issues such as how long it takes for oil to form, for example. This is what the creationist you encountered was doing.

Second, he needs to find his own lines of evidence that seem to indicate that the earth is young. Contrary to the widespread ignorance displayed in this thread, creationist routinely write and discuss such issues.

Some will argue that they are wrong from the start, because they initially start with a 6k age for the earth because that is what the Bible implies. Because they get it from a religious book, they are wrong per se. But this is flawed logic, and in fact is routinely called the ''genetic fallacy''. This is because the origin of a statement is not relevant to it's truthfulness. It does not matter if it came from a book, or from a dream, or from my imagination while I was walking down the street; a statement is to be evaluated from it's claims, not where it originated.

With all this put into perspective (and I doubt anyone will disagree with what I just said), we can now discuss some positive lines of evidence for a young earth. There are also two different types of these:

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 2:26 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 2:49 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 34 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-04-2010 6:05 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2010 7:33 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2010 9:01 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 144 (589793)
11-04-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by zombie ringo
11-04-2010 2:26 PM


Neither of those has any value for determining the age of the earth. The age of something in the earth is not the age of the earth. You need to find the age of the oldest thing in the earth. Anything older than the salt or the zircon crystals automatically nullifies them as age indicators.

By any naturalistic model of the formation of the earth you choose, you will find that the oceans are pretty much as old as the earth itself. Putting a maximum age on them pretty much puts a maximum age on the earth itself. This is as close as you'll get to the researched proposition of ''Date of ____ roughly equals date of the earth''.

The zircon crystals issue is a tad more complicated, but when understood pretty much gives us something ressembling what the OP is asking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 2:26 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 2:59 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 144 (589797)
11-04-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by zombie ringo
11-04-2010 2:59 PM


If you and Taq want to discuss the salt in oceans issue, we'll do it in the appropriate thread. you just have to dig it up, and write over there your concerns.

Of course, the other problem you have is that your alternative methods don't give the same age.

That's because it gives a maximum age. If you can't see the difference there is no bothering in discussing.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 2:59 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:15 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 28 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 3:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 144 (589798)
11-04-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taq
11-04-2010 2:49 PM


I'll do an overview post on the helium diffusion research, then I'll adress critics. I have read in length Henke's paper about a year ago, and through all the smoke of the mudslinging he does, only a handful of issues are of any importance to the data and it's implications.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 2:49 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:17 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 11-04-2010 4:42 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 144 (589816)
11-04-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
11-04-2010 3:15 PM


.
All you need to do here is provide a reason why oceanic salt concentrations are a reliable method for dating the age of the oceans. This would need to include the reasons as to why accumulation would be constant over any and all conditions that the Earth has experienced during it's lifetime..

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

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

Perhaps you mean a minimum age? If we date a rock to 1 million years before present (assuming for the moment that the method is accurate) then the minimum age of the Earth would be 1 million years old since the Earth could have existed prior to the cooling of the rock from molten form..

Fallacious argument by analogy, because we are dating the rock, but we are finding a maximum age for the ocean. As I have said, the only reason this can be transposed to the earth is because of the relationship ''the age of the ocean is roughly equal to the age of the earth'', this relationship coming from the naturalistic models of the formation of the earth.

The same relationship cannot be said of a rock. Because of this, you are correct to say that dating a rock gives a minimal age for the earth. But it's really irrelevant because the two aren't affected by the same relation.

The salt in oceans is a maximum, because of the assumption that you start with an ocean with zero sodium in it. You can see this by realizing that by changing assuming there was an initial quantity, the age you get becomes lower.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:15 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by zombie ringo, posted 11-04-2010 5:36 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:52 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:05 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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


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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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

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


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

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above


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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


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

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1114 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 1114 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 1114 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

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014