Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

My understanding is that the clock is "set" when the small particles of matter from older novae accumulates into larger balls of matter so that the parent\daughter material share the same location. One of the problems with the lead dating (see cosmos ?) was contamination by lead from other sources (which would include "primordial" lead from older decay not associated by location with the parent).Edited by RAZD, : ..qs

There were 10 different methods listed on the graph, and presumably these would work equally well on earth rocks. Yes the major problem with dating the earth directly is finding an outcropping of old rock.

Looks like we are now in summary mode, so you may want to take any further discussion of Snelling and his age of the earth data to a new thread.Currently I am working on a new version of this thread with updated information and emphasis on consilience as well as correlations. The format will be slightly different with shorter and simpler posts that provide the essential information, and references for further study. And I plan to include Snelling in the new version.And I am also making more of a booklet version to see if I can publish on wiki or amazon for wider use.In summary of this thread, I simply refer to Message 1: We can now add over 300 posts on this version without any serious challenge to the correlations and the consilience between the various methods as they overlap and extend our knowledge of the evidence behind position that the earth is old, very very old.I would also like to thank those creationists that have attempted to understand the information, criticizing it from their perspective, and making the thread stronger in providing answers to their questions.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : on

yes

Welcome to the fray OSYour inquiry is not strictly in line with this topic -- perhaps you would like to start a new thread or find an existing topic involving radiometric dating?Enjoy

Curiously I'll let the others deal with you on this non-sense. So do you want to discuss the actual evidence and the source/s of your misinformation and misguided assertions ... ie do you want to actually defend your statements or will you run away as all the other creationists have?We can start with the Bristlecone pine "Methuselah", with an estimated germination date of 2832 BCE.Would you care to show how the science of dendrochronology has it all wrong? With objective evidence rather than bald assertion?It's been a while since any creationist made even a half serious attempt at this.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

Curiously, the ice layers are counted in Greenland and the Antarctic, as well as locations in S. America and China ... not the floating ice at the arctic.Amusingly, the actual research is done by government grants from several nations, so bitching about "taxpayers expense" is just whining about science being done without political -- or religious -- interference.Have a good whine, and we'll watch the scientists laugh at you as you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the 85 pile.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typo

Curiously, not one of those is 40Ar ...So because 238U decays into 234Th which decays to 234mPa which decays to 234U these reactions should be reversible?Fascinating.Enjoy

The word is dendrochronology, so you haven't impressed me yet with your grasp of the topic or your level of education in this matter. Which, curiously, is totally unsupported by objective empirical evidence, like the evidence that actually shows your assertion to be false. Referring back to unsupported assertions doesn't make them any more valid, nor does it give the impression that you know what you are talking about.Care to discuss the actual evidence ... or do you want to keep playing childish games.For instance, how would you test the tree ring data from the Bristlecone pine "Methuselah" to show that it is false or error prone?Surely you must have some rational reason for your claim ... if it is serious and not just wishful thinking ...Enjoy

Which just demonstrates that you don't know what science is.Sadly, for you, this is a well documented field of science with several universities offering Ph.D. degrees in the field. Science is done by the scientific method, and this certainly qualifies --- it is not up to the opinion of an ignorant childish person, one who is apparently ignorant of the field and didn't have the courtesy to even make a cursory review before opening their mouth and demonstrating their ignorance. Curiously, I have no need to do so, because that is a hopelessly uninformed and false statement from the start. Obviously you know nothing about dendrochronology or its relation to 14C ...Once again, all you have demonstrated - thus far - is a rather amusing level of massive ignorance, and a propensity to collect or make up fallacious information which you regurgitate as if it would demonstrate that you are somehow an expert on a field you can't even spell correctly.Perhaps you should consider suing your teachers for gross negligence and fraud.And finally I notice your failure to provide any response to my question: Not up to it?So far all you have done is waste bandwidth.Enjoy

Curiously your "general impressions" do not have any effect on reality, ... other than as a demonstration of the reality that you are woefully ignorant of dendrochronology ... False. False. False.Care to try again?Enjoy.

You don't get it do you?

Curiously I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "spread out with age" ... other than making stuff up instead of learning the facts.I begin to wonder if you even know what a tree ring is, let alone how to measure\count it ... I am not aware of a single thing you have said that even approaches truth obliquely ... Amusingly all a Geiger counter can do is measure the rate of radioactivity it is exposed to, and you need a bit more data than that to calculate the half-life. Anything organic and under ~50,000 years old can theoretically be measured for the content of 14C ... but that is not your previous assertion. So now you are moving the goalposts. Typical. Yes, but I'd be amused to hear your version ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Now you have gone from sublimely ridiculous to absurd. Don't worry ... reality will wait for you to catch up (if you are interested) ... and the objective empirical evidence won't change. Which is irrelevant to 14C dating. Which is more non-sense. Except that we KNOW that exponential decay matches the evidence and linear decay doesn't. This information is readily available if you want to learn.Just because you prefer a simple world doesn't make it so.... and I have to wonder at (a) your level of education (b) the source of your purported education -- home-school with ignorant parent/s or some really shoddy "christian" run sham?You are like a Faux Noise viewer -- someone that is not only not given proper information, but someone who has been given (or allowed to make up) completely wrong information as some pretense of education.What you "know" about 14C is dead wrong and what you "know" about tree rings is dead wrong. So wrong that being ignorant would be better. Like the guy at the firing range that shoots the wall behind him, you're aim is so bad you can't even hit your foot.So far you have made 24 posts on this thread, and every one of them has been a waste of time and bandwidth, completely devoid of any relevance to reality, and completely ignoring the evidence presented, you have been off topic from the start, and only good for amusement value.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : .

You tell me how the Geiger counter measures the mass and composition of the source and I will agree with you. Without having some idea of the number of radioactive atoms involved, measuring the number of decay events won't tell you much other than the source is radioactive ... it won't even tell you what isotope of which element is involved.IIRC you posted some links to articles on the determination of half-lives ... did any of them do it by just counting decay events?abe: OH SNAP: /abeEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...