Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 2:36 PM
392 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,244 Year: 18,850/21,208 Month: 1,609/3,111 Week: 404/707 Day: 100/78 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
323334
35
3637Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 511 of 550 (810198)
05-25-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by CRR
05-21-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours.

Have you tried the library?

Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns
ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound!

This is what I mean by deceit ... he doesn't mention missing rings, he doesn't say anything about the techniques used that identify missing and false rings, and he doesn't make any effort to show that those "circumstances" apply to the trees in question.

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 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2017 1:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4872
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 512 of 550 (810382)
05-29-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by RAZD
05-25-2017 8:42 AM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Some more age correlations for you

quote:
Fossil Forests
In Yellowstone Park at Specimen Ridge, a nearby volcano buried 27 forests one atop the other in rocky debris in Eocene times. After a forest grew on top of some old volcanic debris, the volcano would shower fresh debris through the air on top of it and mudslides consisting of volcanic debris would flow through it. The trunks and branches left sticking above the volcanic debris rotted away. Then a new forest would grow on top all this new debris, repeating the cycle. Animal fossils are scarce because the animals living in the forests fled the area as soon as the volcanic dust made the air hard to breathe. However, the falling debris, which broke the branches off the trunks, preserved many fossil leaves and twigs (conifers, deciduous trees, and ferns). As the rock erodes today, the petrified trees (which erode more slowly) stand upright and project above the ground. Complete root systems have been found in many of these trees. This entire deposit took over 20,000 years to form, double the maximum age of the earth allowed by ICR, and 20,000 times too long to fit into the Flood of Noah.

Erling Dorf (1964) has calculated all this. He noted that the oldest trees in each layer were about 500 years old when they were buried. Igneous rock requires 200 years to decay into a reasonable soil. Add these two figures, and we get the age per layer; multiply by 27 layers, and we get about 20,000 years, the minimum time in which a formation like this can arise.

Flood geologists, on the other hand, insist that Noah's Flood washed in heaps of uprooted trees between eruptions; they say the trees stand upright because dirt which became entangled in the roots weighted down the bottoms enough to hold the trunks upright. Nevertheless, uprooted trees today that wash onto a beach lie on their sides. F. H. Knowlton (1914), referring to a 12-foot-tall 26'/2-foot-around fossil redwood, says, "The roots, which are as large as the roots of ordinary trees, are now embedded in solid rock." William B. Sanborn (1951) says concerning two nearby pines, "Each stands about 15 feet, and shows a complete root system." Charles H. Brown (1961) says that one of the methods of finding exact forest levels was to find "the expansion of the base of an upright tree trunk immediately above the root system." One would expect the trees to be stripped of most of their roots and buried on their sides if they had been uprooted and buried in Noah's Flood.

In an article in some obscure religious journal cited in Robert Kofahl's Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, flood geologist Harry Coffin maintains that the tree rings within a given fossil forest layer do not cross correlate. Let's look into this.

Every year, a tree grows a new ring. If the rainfall varies from year to year where this tree grows, then all the rings in its wood will vary in diameter; the narrow rings grew during the dry years, and the wide ones during wet years. Dendrochronologists (tree-ring daters) correlate tree rings from different trees by comparing ring variation patterns in one tree with those in another to see whether they match.

Since Coffin says the petrified trees of Specimen Ridge have rings that vary enough in diameter to be worth trying to correlate, he implies that before the Flood, rainfall varied from year to year. In this, he contradicts the flood geology model without knowing it (if he assumes with Morris that no rain fell in pre Flood times). Also, since the trees all supposedly died within the same year in the Flood, the flood geology theory implies that if their rings vary in diameter at all, then all the trees everywhere in the formation should cross-correlate. Thus Coffin's claims do not stand up under analysis.


https://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2017 8:42 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(4)
Message 513 of 550 (811233)
06-06-2017 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by CRR
05-21-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Bristlecone Pines and Oaks and CRR
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback – 1960
by Waldo S Glock (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/...owth-layers-branches/dp/B0007DTO02

Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns
ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound!

[edit] So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours.

So, if for the sake of the argument I let you have some chance of multiple rings muddying the chronology of the Bristlecone pines, then what can you say about the oak chronologies in Message 3:

quote:
These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.

Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,444 years ago (in 2017).

Minimum age of the earth > 10,444 years based on this data.

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,444 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.


Do you have a source that says oaks are prone to multiple layers?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 514 of 550 (814829)
07-13-2017 6:45 AM


marc9000 afraid to address the issue of the age of the earth?
In Message 40 marc9000 whines to admin that suggesting he doesn't debate things like the age of the earth was off topic ... in order to avoid answering the question.

Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth?

I won't hold my breath.

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 515 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2017 3:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 881
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 515 of 550 (815021)
07-14-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by RAZD
07-13-2017 6:45 AM


Re: marc9000 afraid to address the issue of the age of the earth?
Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth?

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. It's not important to me. It's not going to effect how I live my life, how I interact with other people, establishing the date I'm going to die, or how I make decisions concerning how I try to please God in living out the plan he has for my life.

Some notable creationists like Ken Ham do have a firm belief in a young earth. Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy. The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't.

We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions.

Few people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding all of reality. The endlessness of space, the meaning of life and all of that. I've seen a few at forums like this say something like; "we don't know it all yet, but we're going to figure it all out someday if we could get rid of all these science blocking Christians", or something similar. But they're a tiny minority, and have no proof that they're intellectually superior to everyone else.

A very basic of Christianity is that there is more than one time dimension and three space dimensions that God operates/has operated in. And yet whenever the scientific community addresses something non-observational, it is always assumed that it must fit the paradigm of re-arrangement, of one time and three space dimensions. The scientific community doesn't immediately clash with Christianity or the supernatural, it just goes past it. The clash part usually comes soon after.

Some who claim to be Christians try to bend and shape Christianity to conform with what the godless scientific community claims, if it takes issue with a traditional Christian belief. As if to say, "if there's a choice between the supernatural and re-arrangements that humans can understand, then the human understandable part has to be given preference.

If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. As I consider only re-arrangement in just about everything we can do or comprehend, I'd almost have to reverse those percentages - I believe there's A LOT about all of reality that humans have no chance of ever being able to comprehend.

To try to jam pack all of reality into a re-arrangement realm isn't just an easily reversed minor mistake - it's WRONG. It's far worse than just a trip to nowhere, it's a wrong road that can continue to lead to more and more wrong conclusions, with society destroying consequences. Today's liberalism is a good example.

If God did use his ability to use more than one time dimension and three space dimensions to create the earth and the universe, ALL this time and energy spent on speculation that naturalistic processes blundered along for billions of years to do the same thing more than just a gigantic waste, it's VERY detrimental to all of human existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2017 6:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2017 4:33 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 517 by Pollux, posted 07-15-2017 2:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:05 AM marc9000 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5899
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 516 of 550 (815033)
07-14-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by marc9000
07-14-2017 3:12 PM


Re: marc9000 afraid to address the issue of the age of the earth?
Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy.

The dichotomy between science and "observable" science is simply another (of many) ways creationists try to disparage any scientific evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. And as usual there is no factual basis behind their claims.

And "controversy?" That's reminiscent of "teach the controversy." That's another creationist ploy to disparage science that conflicts with their beliefs. Regarding evolution, there is no controversy within science, its just a "controversy" cooked up by creationists in their never-ending but futile attack on science in general and evolution in particular.

The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't.

Abject nonsense. Any scientist who could prove a young earth with evidence would be showered with Nobel prizes.

But its interesting that you say, "...scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't" as that's just the method creationists use to support their religious beliefs. Projection, eh?


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2017 3:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 11-13-2011
Member Rating: 8.5


(4)
Message 517 of 550 (815053)
07-15-2017 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by marc9000
07-14-2017 3:12 PM


Re: marc9000 afraid to address the issue of the age of the earth?
The claim that the idea of long ages for the age of the Earth started with atheists trying to prove the Bible wrong has been rebutted at EvC many times.
The Geoscience research Institute was set up by the SDA church to prove creation and after more than 50 years still cannot. However in their early years they had some good articles frankly looking at difficulties.
Go to www.grisda.org/origins and look for vol 8 p59-71 and vol 9 p28-51 for discussion about the early CREATIONIST geologists.

Vol 8 also has an assessment of dating techniques, vol 10 looks at the difficulties of palaeomagnetism for YEC , and vol 17 a similarly YEC difficulty of the Oklo phenomenon.
And these articles are from an organisation looking for YEC evidence.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the more specific links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2017 3:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 518 of 550 (815058)
07-15-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by marc9000
07-14-2017 3:12 PM


that wasn't so hard now, was it?
I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating.

Some notable creationists like Ken Ham ...

... lie through their teeth and make their living off scamming the gullible.

... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't.

Actually there were a lot Christian geologists looking for evidence of the purported flood and came to the conclusion that the earth was older than a few thousand years, but regardless the estimates for an age in the billions of years predates Darwin's trip to the Galapagos on the HMS Beagle:

quote:
History of Geology

In the 19th century, scientific inquiry had estimated the Age of the Earth in terms of millions of years. By the early 20th Century radiogenic isotopes had been discovered and Radiometric Dating had been developed. In 1911 Arthur Holmes dated a sample from Ceylon at 1.6 billion years old using lead isotopes.[29] In 1921, attendees at the yearly meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science came to a rough consensus that the Age of the Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible. Holmes published The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. ...


This claim about the age of the earth being made old to accommodate Darwinism is just more typical Creationist non-science crapola.

Your opportunity to admit error.

We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions.

And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it.

Just as science is doing a very good job of rearranging our understanding of how the universe works, how the climate works, how the effects of us doing things like burning fossil fuels at such an extraordinary pace that it changes the climate will be felt for decades and getting worse (for humans) than it already has.

Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger.

If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ...

Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand.

... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists ...

... over a thousand years by science minded individuals and groups looking for the reality through the use of objective empirical evidence and the testing of theories developed to explain the reality they observe.

The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality.

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything.

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 515 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2017 3:12 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2017 10:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 519 of 550 (815063)
07-15-2017 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by RAZD
07-15-2017 8:05 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?

marc9000 writes:

Some notable creationists like Ken Ham ...


... lie through their teeth and make their living off scamming the gullible.

What a snake!!!

ABE: the quote below came from RAZD's link make their living off scamming the gullible.

quote:
They were promised jobs galore… only to be told later that those jobs were only available to other fundamentalist Christians. For those who got jobs, Ham takes $2 of every $100 in pre-tax wages from their paychecks to help repay his loans.

WOW!, just wow.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM herebedragons has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 881
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 520 of 550 (815064)
07-15-2017 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by RAZD
07-15-2017 8:05 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating.

Why is it fascinating? You don't understand that people have diverse views and interests? Life is short, mine is quite full, there are no huge voids in my life because I don't spend time on non-observational science that isn't provable. I'm only in this thread because you invited me. I am curious about a few things though, I hope you can lose a little of the anger and address them. After I address a few dates from your link;

quote:
By the early 20th Century...... In 1911......In 1921....... in 1927

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book.

And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it.

I was only referring to material, not little philosophical cuties about "rearranging understanding".

Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger.

You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion.

marc9000 writes:

If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ...

Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand.

You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality.

Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? It would be possible for the earth's core and crust and all of that to be old, without evidence that the earth has been going around the sun with similar temperatures that we have today for millions of years. Life is fragile, temperature-wise. There's no species on earth that can survive long at all outside its narrow temperature range.

It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.

marc9000 writes:

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything.

How ignorant are you about world history? About socialism and tyrants? About Biblical teaching on morality? About finances and national debt? If you stay ignorant of those subjects, you'll believe anything Bernie Sanders tells you. I'm 62 and I've been to funerals of several people that were younger than me. Do you have any priorities, or is the age of the earth everything your life is about? Working, paying taxes, living a life, these are all things that automatically take care of themselves for you? I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. Maybe one more terrorist attack, maybe a financial crash that the U.S. has never seen before, will wake a few more people up to that fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2017 3:22 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 522 by edge, posted 07-15-2017 4:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 523 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:49 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 535 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2017 5:04 AM marc9000 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5899
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 521 of 550 (815065)
07-15-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by marc9000
07-15-2017 12:53 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
...non-observational science that isn't provable.

This one line alone shows you have little understanding of science and how it works.

First, NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE. Sorry for the caps, but this is far from the first time I've had to post this, as creationists either don't listen or don't accept what science is and how it actually functions.

Here are some definitions which might help:

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Secondly, your "non-observational science" is just one of the recent creationists efforts to try and pry apart the scientific method and get rid of those sciences which contradict religious beliefs. A more basic creationist line is, "Where you there?"

This is just creationist nonsense which shows a lack of understanding of science--or more likely a desire to destroy the results of a wide range of different scientific fields for non-scientific reasons.

These tactics might work among creationists and the ignorant, but they don't work against those with a basic knowledge of science. They shouldn't even be attempted in a place like this.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 2:58 PM Coyote has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3900
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 522 of 550 (815070)
07-15-2017 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by marc9000
07-15-2017 12:53 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Why is it fascinating?

I find it interesting because it could be that you are subconsciously avoiding the topic because you know that the facts are not on your side.

It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.

Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining. Just look at the altitude record of the ISS. It is repeatedly boosted back into a higher orbit. I think that most people know this. It certainly isn't hidden from public.

And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:55 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 525 by jar, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 523 of 550 (815071)
07-15-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by marc9000
07-15-2017 12:53 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
After I address a few dates from your link;

quote:
By the early 20th Century...... In 1911......In 1921....... in 1927

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book.

Rather it had been building for a while, as people were discovering that the Christian religious concept was increasingly unworkable (same wiki article):

quote:
Also during the eighteenth century, aspects of the history of the Earth—namely the divergences between the accepted religious concept and factual evidence—once again became a popular topic for discussion in society. In 1749, the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon published his Histoire Naturelle, in which he attacked the popular Biblical accounts given by Whiston and other ecclesiastical theorists of the history of Earth.[12] From experimentation with cooling globes, he found that the age of the Earth was not only 4,000 or 5,500 years as inferred from the Bible, but rather 75,000 years.[13] Another individual who described the history of the Earth with reference to neither God nor the Bible was the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who published his Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) in 1755.[14] From the works of these respected men, as well as others, it became acceptable by the mid eighteenth century to question the age of the Earth. This questioning represented a turning point in the study of the Earth. It was now possible to study the history of the Earth from a scientific perspective without religious preconceptions.

Bold for emphasis.

That wasn't Darwin, that was the increase in knowledge as scientific methods were beginning to be used. More:

quote:
With the application of scientific methods to the investigation of the Earth's history, the study of geology could become a distinct field of science. To begin with, the terminology and definition of what constituted geological study had to be worked out. The term "geology" was first used technically in publications by two Genevan naturalists, Jean-André Deluc and Horace-Bénédict de Saussure,[15] though "geology" was not well received as a term until it was taken up in the very influential compendium, the Encyclopédie, published beginning in 1751 by Denis Diderot.[15] Once the term was established to denote the study of the Earth and its history, geology slowly became more generally recognized as a distinct science that could be taught as a field of study at educational institutions. In 1741 the best-known institution in the field of natural history, the National Museum of Natural History in France, created the first teaching position designated specifically for geology.[16] This was an important step in further promoting knowledge of geology as a science and in recognizing the value of widely disseminating such knowledge.

By the 1770s, chemistry was starting to play a pivotal role in the theoretical foundation of geology and two opposite theories with committed followers emerged. These contrasting theories offered differing explanations of how the rock layers of the Earth’s surface had formed. One suggested that a liquid inundation, perhaps like the biblical deluge, had created all geological strata. The theory extended chemical theories that had been developing since the seventeenth century and was promoted by Scotland's John Walker, Sweden's Johan Gottschalk Wallerius and Germany's Abraham Werner.[17] Of these names, Werner's views become internationally influential around 1800. He argued that the Earth’s layers, including basalt and granite, had formed as a precipitate from an ocean that covered the entire Earth. Werner’s system was influential and those who accepted his theory were known as Diluvianists or Neptunists.[18] The Neptunist thesis was the most popular during the late eighteenth century, especially for those who were chemically trained. However, another thesis slowly gained currency from the 1780s forward. Instead of water, some mid eighteenth-century naturalists such as Buffon had suggested that strata had been formed through heat (or fire). The thesis was modified and expanded by the Scottish naturalist James Hutton during the 1780s. He argued against the theory of Neptunism, proposing instead the theory of based on heat. Those who followed this thesis during the early nineteenth century referred to this view as Plutonism: the formation of the Earth through the gradual solidification of a molten mass at a slow rate by the same processes that had occurred throughout history and continued in the present day. This led him to the conclusion that the Earth was immeasurably old and could not possibly be explained within the limits of the chronology inferred from the Bible. Plutonists believed that volcanic processes were the chief agent in rock formation, not water from a Great Flood.[19]


Bold again for emphasis.

Still before Darwin. It wasn't "Darwinism" ... it was the pursuit of facts and reality by the scientific methods. Still more:

quote:
19th Century

... During this century various geologists further refined and completed the stratigraphic column. For instance, in 1833 while Adam Sedgwick was mapping rocks that he had established were from the Cambrian Period, Charles Lyell was elsewhere suggesting a subdivision of the Tertiary Period;[23] whilst Roderick Murchison, mapping into Wales from a different direction, was assigning the upper parts of Sedgewick's Cambrian to the lower parts of his own Silurian Period.[24] The stratigraphic column was significant because it supplied a method to assign a relative age of these rocks by slotting them into different positions in their stratigraphical sequence. This created a global approach to dating the age of the Earth and allowed for further correlations to be drawn from similarities found in the makeup of the Earth’s crust in various countries.

In early nineteenth-century Britain, catastrophism was adapted with the aim of reconciling geological science with religious traditions of the biblical Great Flood. In the early 1820s English geologists including William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick interpreted "diluvial" deposits as the outcome of Noah's flood, but by the end of the decade they revised their opinions in favour of local inundations.[25] Charles Lyell challenged catastrophism with the publication in 1830 of the first volume of his book Principles of Geology which presented a variety of geological evidence from England, France, Italy and Spain to prove Hutton’s ideas of gradualism correct.[21] He argued that most geological change had been very gradual in human history. Lyell provided evidence for Uniformitarianism; a geological doctrine that processes occur at the same rates in the present as they did in the past and account for all of the Earth’s geological features.[26] Lyell’s works were popular and widely read, the concept of Uniformitarianism had taken a strong hold in geological society.[21]

During the same time that the stratigraphic column was being completed, imperialism drove several countries in the early to mid 19th century to explore distant lands to expand their empires. This gave naturalists the opportunity to collect data on these voyages. In 1831 Captain Robert FitzRoy, given charge of the coastal survey expedition of HMS Beagle, sought a suitable naturalist to examine the land and give geological advice. This fell to Charles Darwin, who had just completed his BA degree and had accompanied Sedgwick on a two-week Welsh mapping expedition after taking his Spring course on geology. Fitzroy gave Darwin Lyell’s Principles of Geology, and Darwin became Lyell's first disciple, inventively theorising on uniformitarian principles about the geological processes he saw, and challenging some of Lyell's ideas. He speculated about the Earth expanding to explain uplift, then on the basis of the idea that ocean areas sank as land was uplifted, theorised that coral atolls grew from fringing coral reefs round sinking volcanic islands. This idea was confirmed when the Beagle surveyed the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and in 1842 he published his theory on The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Darwin's discovery of giant fossils helped to establish his reputation as a geologist, and his theorising about the causes of their extinction led to his theory of evolution by natural selection published in On the Origin of Species in 1859.[25][27][28]


So you have it backwards, in typical creationist misinformed fashion. The discoveries in geology drove Darwin's thinking, not the other way around. The concept of the age of the earth in Darwin's time was plenty long enough for evolution to work. The ensuing updates were not necessary. They continued, not to validate Darwin's theory but to find the answers to the question of the actual age of the earth.

You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion.

If it makes you happy to believe this, then wrap yourself up in it. You were the one dodging and dragging the thread into politics and dictionaries rather than just the creationists use of quote-mines when they claim a moral superiority that more and more is very apparently absolutely missing.

You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. ...

What you are capable of understanding is tied directly to your ability to understand, and that is built on current knowledge, so it keeps changing.

... Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that? Currently we know ~10% of what we think the universe is. Will that increase? yes. Will the "what we think the universe is" increase? yes, as we learn more, we also learn what we don't know but hypothesis. So your question was silly.

Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? ...

The correlations, the consilience, the continued evidence of old age from numerous different sources coming to the same results.

... What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? ...

The most recent 50,000 years are all based on signals left by living organisms, year after year with the same basic "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" as exists today.

The dating methods for more ancient times, like the ice-cores extending over 250,000 years in Greenland and 900,000 years in Antarctica have DNA in samples that show life was thriving at those times.

They also validate radiometric methods, so the 4.5 billion year age of the earth and 3.5 billion year age of known life and all the fossils in between that flourish in the rocks of different ages all show a "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" ... without evidence of a world wide magic flood or segregation of organisms into discrete "kinds" ...

You may not be interested in how old the earth actually is, but the reality makes YECists just as loony, schizophrenic and deluded as belief in a flat earth, for the same reason: evidence of reality says otherwise.

... I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. ...

Except that it is the one way to have repeatably consistent information. Opinions and biased beliefs are notorious bad sources ... especially ones based on invalid myth, and moonstruck fantasy from listening to hucksters that are interested in one thing: making money off you (Ken Ham for example).

Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, ...

Curiously it takes me much less than that to do the research to find the information I can use, and then organize it and assemble it, and you only need to read the first 13 posts to get the information I have condensed for you ... and anyone else interested in reality.

The newest version is broken down a little more and has a lot of background information to assist understanding. Part 1 is the biological systems and it runs to some 20 posts of information, while Part 2 is the physical/chemical systems, currently at 7 posts and growing, while Part 3 will be about radiometric and cosmological systems (including one on why and how fast the Moon orbit is increasing and one on solar sunspot cycles and their footprints in the data).

Mostly they include updated information that expands -- rearranges -- our knowledge of these systems.

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 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 3:24 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 524 of 550 (815072)
07-15-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by edge
07-15-2017 4:45 PM


Satellites and orbits
Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining....

Most satellites are in low orbits that still have trace atmosphere, and so they slow them down bit by bit. The NASA engineers are well aware of this.

And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon.

Indeed, and at the same time the spin of the earth is slowing down, both due to the gravitational effects of daily tides ... and this too results in data that shows that the earth is old, very very very old.

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 522 by edge, posted 07-15-2017 4:45 PM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 525 of 550 (815073)
07-15-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by edge
07-15-2017 4:45 PM


Loses its Gravity Grip?
marc writes:

I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away.

Did he really post something that utterly stupid?

I can understand TV news reporters saying such stupid things but I did not know marc was a TV news reporter.

A gravity grip.

And I suppose rapists and bank robbers have a Vice Grip?

I understand it is not quite germane to the topic but it is also so amazingly outlandish that I cannot possible not acknowledge it as perhaps the funniest thing a creationist has said here since the days of WillowTree.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by edge, posted 07-15-2017 4:45 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 3:28 PM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
323334
35
3637Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017