Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 10:08 PM
278 online now:
JonF, ramoss (2 members, 276 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5253
54
55565758Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 796 of 864 (840755)
10-04-2018 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 795 by ringo
10-03-2018 12:40 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Easy. When you assume slow deposition or growth for several items, naturally you get old ages.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 12:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 799 by ringo, posted 10-04-2018 12:11 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 797 of 864 (840756)
10-04-2018 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 794 by Tangle
10-03-2018 12:36 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
I heard about 4500 but there is room for interpretive difference.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2018 12:36 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2018 3:54 AM creation has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 798 of 864 (840764)
10-04-2018 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 797 by creation
10-04-2018 12:33 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

I heard about 4500 but there is room for interpretive difference.

So all we have to do is demonstrate how the world is older than 6,000 years and/or that there are organisms and civilisations older than the flood.

This is a science thread that deals with earth's age and how different and independent methods demonstrate beyond all doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 yeras. It just deals with simple things that we can physically count. There are many other methods that also prove the same thing - from physics, astronomy, archaeology etc - but these are the really easy ones to understand.

Because these things are not related to each other an error in one can't create an error in another. Yet they all confirm each other. This is what RAZD says at the begnning of the thread. It's your job now to explain why each of these methods are not only wrong but how they can all be wrong but still agree with each other. This is called consilience, where different and independent methods all confirm a common result. It's a very, very high standard of science.

It requires more than your usual two line dismissive response; it's a serious piece of scientific work. (His original post contains links to each claim which you will need to read, it's all at post 1.)

quote:
For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up - there are a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand:

Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.

European Oaks - 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 ).

German Pines - 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).

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

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

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

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

The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data

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

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

The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.



Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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 797 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 12:33 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 803 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:07 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 804 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:17 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 835 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:20 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 799 of 864 (840792)
10-04-2018 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 796 by creation
10-04-2018 12:32 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

Easy. When you assume slow deposition or growth for several items, naturally you get old ages.


We can see lake varves forming. We can see ice layers forming. We can count them as they form. There is no assumption about the deposition rate.

And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers?

You should think before you try to give "easy" answers. Scientists have put in thousands of hours studying these things. A schoolboy is not going to refute them with "easy" answers.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 12:32 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by JonF, posted 10-04-2018 4:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 801 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:03 PM ringo has responded
 Message 836 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:21 AM ringo has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4211
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 800 of 864 (840844)
10-04-2018 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 799 by ringo
10-04-2018 12:11 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers?

Not to mention U-Th disequilibrium dating of speleothems. Obviously far beyond his comprehension.

Extremely Large Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentration During the Last Glacial Period. It's part of the latest INTCAL calibration curve.
Uranium–thorium dating

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by ringo, posted 10-04-2018 12:11 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:05 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 801 of 864 (840849)
10-04-2018 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 799 by ringo
10-04-2018 12:11 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Yes, as we can watch trees grow. Too bad for you that has absolutely zero to do with how layers were deposited or trees grew in the former nature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by ringo, posted 10-04-2018 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 809 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 12:16 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 802 of 864 (840850)
10-04-2018 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by JonF
10-04-2018 4:30 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Don't flatter yourself. If you want to introduce a claim that present decay and rates etc existed in the past, then get to er. Did you think you could get by with simply assuming they did?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by JonF, posted 10-04-2018 4:30 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 803 of 864 (840851)
10-04-2018 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Tangle
10-04-2018 3:54 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Name ANY of those methods that is not based on belief that nature was the same in the past. Then we can talk. You can't. They all are. This means you have religion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2018 3:54 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2018 2:49 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 804 of 864 (840855)
10-04-2018 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Tangle
10-04-2018 3:54 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
You cannot show any civilization older. The ONLY way you do that is with religious belief based same state past assuming decay dating. Gong.

Or would you like to resort to the king lists for dating!!!? Ha.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2018 3:54 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 805 of 864 (840882)
10-05-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 803 by creation
10-04-2018 6:07 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

Name ANY of those methods that is not based on belief that nature was the same in the past. Then we can talk. You can't. They all are.

We know that a year has lasted about 365 days since man started keeping records. That's several thousand years. So for some unexplained and unevidenced reason you think that time changed somewhere around 3,000 years ago?

That would mean that day length in the remaining 3,000 years would need to last millions of years. The consequences of that on biology are unimaginable. But to just name a couple, there would be huge and detectable changes to tree rings and ice layers. In fact there would be only one ring and one ice layer before the change and they would be enormous and unmissable. But they don't exist.

And in any case radiometric dating methods are unaffected by day length or time changes. It decays at a set rate regardless.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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 803 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:07 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 806 by creation, posted 10-05-2018 11:51 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 837 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:24 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 806 of 864 (840900)
10-05-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 805 by Tangle
10-05-2018 2:49 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Man has not kept records very long. In fact, there seems to be no reason to assume that man even had any need to write at all in that pre flood/nature change world. I suspect that the need to communicate via written form arose after the time of the tower of Babel.

Babel happens to be the likely time of the nature change. The nature change would have happened in the days of Peleg, and, if I recall, I think Peleg was about 5 years old at the time of Babel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2018 2:49 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2018 11:57 AM creation has responded
 Message 811 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 1:23 PM creation has responded
 Message 813 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-05-2018 4:19 PM creation has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 807 of 864 (840903)
10-05-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 806 by creation
10-05-2018 11:51 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

Man has not kept records very long. In fact, there seems to be no reason to assume that man even had any need to write at all in that pre flood/nature change world. I suspect that the need to communicate via written form arose after the time of the tower of Babel.

So let me get this straight, when 4,500 years ago, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, how long where those datys and nights?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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 806 by creation, posted 10-05-2018 11:51 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by creation, posted 10-05-2018 12:06 PM Tangle has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 808 of 864 (840910)
10-05-2018 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 807 by Tangle
10-05-2018 11:57 AM


Re: And now some questions on past times
Roughly the same as now. However apparently a year was 360 days so I guess there was some little difference.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2018 11:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by dwise1, posted 10-05-2018 1:15 PM creation has responded
 Message 812 by Tangle, posted 10-05-2018 1:43 PM creation has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 809 of 864 (840913)
10-05-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by creation
10-04-2018 6:03 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

Yes, as we can watch trees grow. Too bad for you that has absolutely zero to do with how layers were deposited or trees grew in the former nature.


There is no evidence of a "former nature". You can't just make things up to suit your beliefs.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:03 PM creation has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3176
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(4)
Message 810 of 864 (840922)
10-05-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by creation
10-05-2018 12:06 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
However apparently a year was 360 days so I guess there was some little difference.

What is your source for that utterly false and ridiculous supposition? Seriously, which creationist was it who made that up and what did he claim as his source? (Typically, creationists will claim a scientific source as their own source, when actually they just took the claim directly from another creationist, claimed scientific source and all, while deliberately lying about what their source was.)

The year has never ever been 360 days long, but it will be some time in the future. The earth's rotation is slowing down on the whole, currently at an average rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century. Hence the earth had a more rapid rotation in the past and will have a slower rotation in the future. A more rapid rotation would mean more days in a year, not fewer as you just claimed; eg, around 400 million years ago there would have been about 400 days in each year as verified by the varves in Devonian fossil coral reefs.

So what is your source for that ridiculous false claim and why did you allow yourself to be deceived by it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by creation, posted 10-05-2018 12:06 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:18 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5253
54
55565758Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018