Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

No, the prediction is made based on the effect of climate on the production of 14C from Nitrogen known from other sources. The results from the varves validates the prediction.Note that I am using climate here in a very broad sense that includes long term patterns of global change rather than just seasonal variations.Another effect on 14C production is the strength of the sun's and the earth's magnetic fields. These are also known to vary in fairly cyclic patterns and thus the effects of this can be matched to the variations observed. There is still some debate on how linked global weather patterns are to these field changes, so it might be better to keep them in separate categories.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Radiation goes right through diamonds. The particles are smaller than the atoms. Being "tough" and being impenetrable are different things.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is the purpose behind the science of making this calibration. They start from the basis that 14C dating is correct and valid, and then check to see how it can be used to find the variations in the past that would be from known causes - the solar radiation variations (changes in magnetic fields of earth and sun) and then be able to use that information in other studies. They know the broad strokes of those variations but not the fine print, so this gives them some of the fine print.The side benefit for us is that it validates the ages of the organic fossils with the age of the layers ... and also correlates to those broad strokes that are known from other sources.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Another site that might be a little easier reading isK-12Written for high school students, and it answers some of the common questions and misunderstandings of the method as well.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this passage, but no insult was intended, just a statement of the relevant status of the facts that can be readily observed by normal people.No, I don't think it is ridiculous to point out what we currently accept as the truth based on the scientific evidence.But when the geocentric model of the {earth\universe} was disproven there were no planes or satellites or any measurements from outside the atmosphere, it was all done from standing on solid ground.The actual evidence from that basis is rather archane to most people and difficult for a layman to understand, but it was sufficient to show that indeed the earth orbited the sun and that the shape of the earth was not flat (or bowl shaped) but rounded with a longer diameter at the equator than over the poles (due to the earth spinning, btw).The point being that based on your own personal experience you cannot readily show that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun: you are actually relying on current (scientific) knowledge to be factual and basing your perception of the earth on it.There are still people who do not accept this reality because of their personal beliefs:
http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/fe-scidi.htmThere are those who believe that the whole space program is a fraud:
Science News | Science Mission DirectorateMeanwhile the evidence of an old earth can be touched and felt and observed by normal people: you can tough tree rings and know that they are annual features of normal growth. From this you can easily understand the counting of annual layers in sets of trees with overlapping chronologies, and from there progress to counting of layers made by other mechanisms. You can easily see how agreement between these chronologies would create a valid and logical composite chronology that extends far enough into the deep past that it doesn't just question the concept of a young earth, but to renders it invalid. There is no YEC model with an earth older than the oldest known annual layers.So the question becomes why are some people emotionally attached to a young earth model in denial of this overwhelming evidence?Is this {anger\denial} really any different than the {anger\denial} that fought against the evidence of an earth orbiting a rather insignificant star in a distant arm of a rather mediocre galaxy?It comes down to denial. I find this to be the essential element of this CvE debate: not what is accepted, but what is denied. Denial of evidence is irrational at some level, no matter what the evidence shows. But we are talking about a bigger difference than the one between a newborn infant taking it's first breath and an 87 year old grandmother smiling down on it. No two rational people would argue that they are the same age.Hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I wish I could help you there, but I am not aware of an easy reader on this topic: part of the reason I put the topic together. I see what I can find. (perhaps some other poster has some suggestions?)Also, part of the problem is possibly having to deal with some preconceptions that are in conflict with the evidence, this is hard for any of us to overcome. Of course not. Not just because they are unrelated sciences, but also because no scientific theory can be "proved true" - they can be proved false and they can be validated by making predictions that happen, however the next test could prove them false.All it means is that the earth is not "young," as that concept has been {invalidated\proven false}, so we move on to a model that has an old earth.Hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But does it cover the kinds of dating systems in the topic? I think that is what Christian is asking for, not just a book on the age of the earth.

Seems like Christian is taking a breather.For another correlation see
http://EvC Forum: So now there is a record going back over 600,000 years
specifically
EvC Forum: So now there is a record going back over 600,000 years

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not. I expect her to be looking into other information too (like Dalrymple's book). But thanks for the update.Anyone know of a good book on tree ring dating? That might help too.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In message 26 of the topic {Behavioural traits and created kinds} Faith responds: Transfering response to this comment here:The problem is not just "other explanations" but ones that are consistent with the data and show why the same climate correlations occur within different age dating layer counting methods in different parts of the world. Why are these methods so devastatingly accurate for the historical period? What changes to all of them to cause the same kinds of errors in different systems?Each of the layer counting methods have ways to correlate them to global climate and in each case the global climate patterns are the same AND match those that are documented in history.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Those correlations with historical events show that the counting methods are valid. There is no evidence of any drastic change at any point in any of the measurement systems, only evidence that the same thing is happening year after year after year after year.Now read from the beginning of the thread and explain how those differences can possibly be, when did they occur and why they do NOT show up in any of the records.Explain why they affected the trees in california and europe the same, the glaciers in greenland and antarctica and south america the same (but by a different mechanism from the trees) and the layers of diatoms and clay in a lake in Japan (again a different mechanism) and .... so on through each method of counting annual layers.Take your time. The issue here is correlations.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In message Faith responds: Note, the tree in question was still growing in the ground when it was cut down in 1957 to count the rings (and ensure that there were no errors in the count) and there was no evidence of a geological flood at any time the tree was alive. When you say 6000 years ago, but not my 6000 years ago, cause you use a different measurement system, then all I am left with is "long, long ago" -- I have no way to correlate what you mean with what is a measurable age.Either we agree on a measurement system or we don't. If we don't, then "long, long ago" is all that is conveyed by numbers that are not in the same measuring system.If you can't correlate your measurement system with the evidence of layered ages that correlate to each other and to the grand climatological changes around the world, then you are left in the unenviable position of defending a system that does look ad hoc at best and pure myth at worst.Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

seems a good point to stop this one and make a new one with the OP, close with a link to the new one so Christian can find it.see slightly revised version in new topics (updated to all corrections made in part II with new links and info)
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part IIIThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*15*2005 08:42 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.