Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 3:15 AM
347 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,311 Year: 23,917/21,208 Month: 1,882/2,468 Week: 391/822 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
39Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 481 of 578 (797629)
01-24-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:40 PM


bump for new member time ...
To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be.

The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.

So time, care to take a crack at it? Start with Message 1 for the ground rules of this thread, then proceed to the dendrochronology section:

  • 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).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 4:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 482 of 578 (798253)
02-01-2017 10:35 AM


Information for Micah8294
Welcome to the fray Micah8294,

in your proposed thread Some questions for atheists... you ask

2. how do evolutionists overcome the issues about the age of the earth (i'm sure you've heard the arguments)

This thread (written in 2007) is about the many ways that we determine age from objective empirical evidence, starting with simple system where layers can be counted. Please read Message 1 and Message 2 to get started.

You can see a proposed newer version at The Age of the Earth. This new thread would update and add information that has become available since 2007, when this thread was written. If you are interested in debate on this newer thread (you won't be able to reply to that thread until it is promoted), please message me or ADMIN.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 483 of 578 (798754)
02-05-2017 11:09 AM


'time' on Cross forum evolution debate thread
' time' emailed me with the link to his reply on Cross forum evolution debate thread on the website:

So this is to debate with 'time' on two different forums, 'time' on the link above, and me here.

The moderation on the other forum I find unacceptable and biased, so there is no way I would or could discuss anything there.

And I'm not sure I can not be banned on his site:

quote:
If this is your first visit, you will have to register before you can post on all forums. If you post links, spam or advertisements of other websites, will be deleted and/or banned. Account will be activated upon registration and you will be listed as junior member: click the register link above to proceed, when logging in, best to select remember me box or you may be logged off by system after time. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Again, to post you must login.

So I have registered with CARM in order to read the posts and make minor comments, but I don't trust them to let me post in full without banning me permanently and without notice.

So here we are...

time on CARM writes:

Cross forum evolution debate thread
01-30-17, 02:23 PM

I was asked to comment on some issues contained in a post on another forum. Time permitting I plan to briefly address the dozen or so points raised there. I see no need for the thread originator to post here, but I will give them the link in case they feel a need to do so.

Here is the link to the thread and post.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=6288

I notice all of the points are solidly based on the same belief. A belief in a same state past.So really all that needs to be done here is to illustrate how all the points are actually religion, and not knowledge based or any real science.

I would point out that in his summation on 'the bottom line' he says this

"All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap..."

Now that point has no real validity when we consider that the actual issue is not the overlapping climate changes, but the length of time this took. Yes, a pattern of changes exists. Now the question is, in what way does that support the old age, no God, no flood so called sciences belief system any more than a creation friendly, bible friendly approach?

The moderation on the other forum I find unacceptable and biased, so there is no way I would or could discuss anything there.

So here we are...

I notice all of the points are solidly based on the same belief. A belief in a same state past.So really all that needs to be done here is to illustrate how all the points are actually religion, and not knowledge based or any real science.

Always amusing when creationists try to turn science into religion.

Not a belief, but a basic hypothesis of all science: that in the absence of any cause or reason to think otherwise, it is most rational to think that the universal laws that govern the behavior of things act in the past in a manner consistent with the way we observe them behaving today.

As a scientific hypothesis it is based on evidence that we can observe for the consistency of behavior, and as long as those tests do not refute the hypothesis or demonstrate severe anomalies we can have confidence that this is the best approximation we have to date for how things work.

This denial of the science is similar to his arguments about whether we can know time outside the solar system, and trying to mess time up doesn't make the evidence go away, nor does it explain the consilience in results obtained.

I would point out that in his summation on 'the bottom line' he says this

"All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap..."

This is from Message 12 so he has skipped over all the evidence and not tried to refute a single point.

Not a stellar start.

In terms of clarity and to provide the latest information on these methods I will be replying on a news thread, as it appears that 'time' may not stay on topic or address the issues here.

So I plan to post my replies on Cross forum evolution debate on Age of the Earth, let him know and then copy his replies there and continue. If that thread is promoted, then others will be able to participate.

Enjoy

ps - with 483 posts and little recent activity I think it is time to close this thread and move to The Age of the Earth with updates and new information.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : time to close this one


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 484 of 578 (808030)
05-08-2017 7:59 AM


For the newcomer YEC's ...
In Message 121 of the Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. thread, Dredge trys to shame/guilt-trip herebedragons with this comment:

As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.

Dredge seems to be blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is just part of reality, and that any opinions or interpretations of Scripture etc that are incompatible with reality are just delusional. See #3:

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

So let's start with Message 1 and see where reality leads us.

We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms.

To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be.

The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 3:17 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 487 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 9:04 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(4)
Message 485 of 578 (808149)
05-08-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by RAZD
05-08-2017 7:59 AM


Re: For the newcomer YEC's ...
RAZD writes:

So let's start with Message 1 and see where reality leads us.

You have always done a great job of showing correlation between non-radiometric methods and radiometric methods. However, the correlation between completely independent radiometric methods is also quite compelling. Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite essays on the subject:

quote:

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.

"Radiometric Dating Does Work!" by G Brent Dalrymple
https://ncse.com/...ry-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work



This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 7:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 4:56 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 486 of 578 (808161)
05-08-2017 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by Taq
05-08-2017 3:17 PM


Re: For the newcomer YEC's ...
... Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.

That would be a good talking point between The Devil's Hole, Message 9 and Talking Coral Heads, Message 10 in my next version - where I plan to concentrate even more on the consilience of results from different methods and sets of data. (see The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) in Proposed New Topics)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 485 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 3:17 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 487 of 578 (808500)
05-11-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by RAZD
05-08-2017 7:59 AM


Life before 5778 years ago.
Message 175, Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.: Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.

So I'm replying here as this would be off topic on Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.

So the evidence of life from trees living 12,405 years ago is explained how?

See Message 4 of this thread.

and the evidence of organic debris from Lake Suigetsu sediments from 35,987 years ago is explained how?

See Message 5 of this thread.

Note that there is consilience of data between the trees and the lake varve data that also needs to be explained: why do the tree rings and the lake varves have the same %14C content for layers of the same age?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 484 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 7:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 488 of 578 (809501)
05-18-2017 4:04 PM


The earth is OLD, get used to it.
The age of the earth is a challenge to some sects of Christianity, just as the belief in an earth centered universe was in the times of Galileo. Christianity has (mostly) adapted. It will do the same for the age of the earth, and YEC will become marginalized and mocked the way flat-earthers are.

SO start at Message 1 and see how far you get. I'll be happy to accommodate you in your search for truth.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 5:59 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 489 of 578 (809520)
05-18-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by RAZD
05-18-2017 4:04 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
The age of the earth is a challenge to some sects of Christianity, just as the belief in an earth centered universe was in the times of Galileo. Christianity has (mostly) adapted. It will do the same for the age of the earth, and YEC will become marginalized and mocked the way flat-earthers are.

We're already mocked that way. And I'm not here to debate the age question, just to correct your idea of how the biblical belief works. I believed in the old earth until my mid forties when I became a Christian. Over the next few years as I learned the Biblical timing I became a creationist. That may not happen to all new Christians but that's the order of things I went through. There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 4:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 6:01 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 490 of 578 (809521)
05-18-2017 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
05-18-2017 5:59 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
Faith writes:

There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway.

The map is not the territory. Those who can't understand this simple concept are open to mockery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 5:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 7:03 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 491 of 578 (809539)
05-18-2017 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Taq
05-18-2017 6:01 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
Faith writes:
There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway.

The map is not the territory. Those who can't understand this simple concept are open to mockery.

Uh huh. Well, so are some who do understand it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 6:01 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 7:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 498 by Taq, posted 05-19-2017 12:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 492 of 578 (809540)
05-18-2017 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
05-18-2017 7:03 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it. That's the topic
and this is about age correlations how?

Thanks for your comments clarifying your position, but let's concentrate on the topic or post elsewhere.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 491 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 7:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 11:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 493 of 578 (809554)
05-18-2017 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by RAZD
05-18-2017 7:05 PM


How old is it anyway?
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 7:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2017 5:53 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 499 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2017 8:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 507 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2017 6:58 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 494 of 578 (809559)
05-19-2017 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:42 PM


Re: European Oaks
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

Why would they all be dead if they were covered with water they don't have the breath of life in them? Just wondering.

With the type of a flood that YEC'S talk about yea they would be in the coal beds.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 4:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2017 6:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 495 of 578 (809560)
05-19-2017 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
01-07-2007 6:25 PM


Re: The Devil's Hole
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

•The world is older than 567,000 years and no global flood has occurred in that time.

Is there any spot on earth that has not been covered with water at one time?

What would you expect to find if it had been covered with water?

You can answer in a pm if you prefer.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2007 6:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
39Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017