|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
If the creation model (any of them) is accurate, then the assumption that all trees started as seeds is in error. Meaning that the core sample, could contain years that were placed their by the creator, at the beginning. Or everything could have been created last Thursday, including all memories of the past along with the false appearance of age, by Loki, the trickster god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
thank my viking ancestors and the indians (american) for the tricksters.
You know, if God really is Loki, then we're pretty much screwed. After all, Loki is responsible for the ragnarok--apocalypse. and if I recall correctly--the sole survivors will be two people. I predict the ragnarok will occur this thursday, seeing as how Loki is mad that we can see through the trick, and will wish us destroyed after only a week's worth of existence. either that, or in 2012. equally as valid, equally as pointless All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That wouldn't explain much of the data from oaks. A few species of oak can reach ages of 1,000 years but that's it. So on that data alone you have to accept that the earth is at least 9000 years old, and probably older. And that requires assuming that the "originally created" wood is available to find - so likely te earth is more than 9,000 years old without even considering the other evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First, what is time, that you claim to be testing it? I'll assume this is the "ID" part of your argument (it doesn't appear to have anything to do with creationist arguments I am aware of). Time is part of the observation of the universe that science is based on. The observation is of many multiples of periodic events that can be compared and correlated and that show "time" based on one set of data work equally to measure "time" based on other sets of data -- that makes it reproducable, repeatable, quantifiable and measurable. For ID to be scientific it will use time as part of the observation set of reality. Feel free to describe how ID can use an alternate definition of time to explain the universe ... from the mundane to the arcane ... ... such as the observed orbit of the earth around the sun with a time period designated as a year (for convenience) and also of rotational periods designated days (for convenience) and the correlation of days within the year periods that correlate with climate and distance from the sun for as long as records have been kept and which can be extended into the past by looking at climate patterns that are repeated ... ... and have any results that are useful for such things as planting crops and avoiding hurricanes. If the idea is that ID is science then it needs to be able to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. If we use ID to say that time is illusion then it is not science, it is philosophy, and it is useless for making contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
... then the assumption that all trees started as seeds is in error. Meaning that the core sample, could contain years that were placed their by the creator, at the beginning. ... and that this is your creationist answer ... So you view anything that preceeds your creationist preconception time limit to be made that way by your god. Congratulations for making one of the fasted jumps to the typical creationist cop-out "god did it to fool you" excuse that leaves you with your god being the trickster, loki, raven, kitsune, etc... (the one form of god that shows up in all theologies). This of course does not invalidate the tree ring data or the counting of years based on it, it just shows you'd prefer to believe in fantasy than reality.
Contamination of the sample is also an issue. Could be more rings in a year, or less. That's why it's not a test of time. And this is a less than half hearted feeble attempt to actually have some substance in your post. The answer is simple -- there is too much data for that to be the case (I'll put this down to your failure to investigate this and learn about it because you'd rather not confront reality -- you'd rather live in a world where time is an illusion and your gods play tricks on you eh?). For one, the tree ring counts are not based on a single tree nor a single core in each tree, but on multiple counts and multiple cores. They build up a data base of tree rings versus age and climate trends that allows them to check for errors due to "false rings" and "missing rings" (as they are known). The "methusula" was cut down so the whole section could be evaluated to ensure that the rings were properly counted. Then there are also several sets of tree ring chronologies (only two are listed above but there are links to others). The thing to note is that both of the ones listed agree on ages correlated to climate for the length of their tree ring records, even though they are from different parts of the world and are composed of trees with different life spans. AND This kind of agreement\correlation exists for all the different tree ring chronologies. Thus the known - and accounted for - source of errors do not affect the tree ring chronologies.
... it still involves assumptions that have no verification. Again your failure to study the issue leads you to make false {assumtpions\assertions}. The tree rings also correlate to known climate events recorded in history (the "little ice age", etc), and they correlate to 14C dating of the trees which also correlate to the historical dates of objects -- in some cases all three at once (as in wood objects in the egyptian tombs). Summary (1) the "ID" excuse that time is an illusion -- leads to useless information for scientific purposes on all levels, renders ID non-scientific (2) the "creationist" excuse that "god did it to fool you" -- and that shows you really believe in a trickster god, and (3) some poor assumptions and assertions thrown that show your lack of understanding of the depth of knowledge and science involved in tree ring chronologies -- and which are easliy refuted by facts. Net Results
The real world is unimpressed by your fantasy. Tree Rings -- 1 (and still undefeated)Hughes -- 0 Let's try less fantasy and more fact next time eh? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... curious why paleomagnetism was not included with your age correlations ... I was trying to keep this to be mostly about dating methods that relied on counting annual layers, and how each method correlates with climate and other events. see Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages for another thread on correlations that includes things like continental drift as well as the different radiometric methods Of course we could also put together a thread on the correlations between the correlation threads ... Edited by RAZD, : ypto Edited by RAZD, : pyot Edited by RAZD, : bbcode message link we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hughes Inactive Member |
First, what is time, that you claim to be testing it? Time is part of the observation of the universe that science is based on. The observation is of many multiples of periodic events that can be compared and correlated and that show "time" based on one set of data work equally to measure "time" based on other sets of data -- that makes it reproducable, repeatable, quantifiable and measurable. First, I didn't see a definition of "Time." What is it exactly? Second, I noticed you put "Time" in quotes. Why is that?
there are also several sets of tree ring chronologies (only two are listed above but there are links to others). The thing to note is that both of the ones listed agree on ages correlated to climate for the length of their tree ring records, even though they are from different parts of the world and are composed of trees with different life spans. AND This kind of agreement\correlation exists for all the different tree ring chronologies.
Like I said:I think that the tree rings are probably one of the better tests. Though it's not a strict test of time, but of tree growth. Congratulations for making one of the fasted jumps to the typical creationist cop-out "god did it to fool you" excuse that leaves you with your god being the trickster, loki, raven, kitsune, etc... (the one form of god that shows up in all theologies). This of course does not invalidate the tree ring data or the counting of years based on it, it just shows you'd prefer to believe in fantasy than reality. I've not tried to invalidate any data. I am simply pointing out that counting tree rings doesn't count time. It's a simple point. I have said, it's probably the closest one comes though. I'm also pointing out that the "GOD Doesn't play any part of this" Model isn't the only valid way of looking at the data. Disagree, that's fine.
The only place you have shown tree rings to be of questionable value is in your proposed fantasy world (and the only reason they are questionable there is because of the fantasy proposed to make them so - make believe is like that eh?). The real world is unimpressed by your fantasy. Not here to impress anyone.I do enjoy the debate, and interaction with folks willing to discuss these issues. However, calling the opposing model a "fantasy" is a little like name calling, don't you think? IF you think that a model that includes a deity/creator/beginner is in error, that's fine. But, unless you can discredit or disprove that one exists, then the model has to be taken as equal to the "God plays no part in this..." model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
First, I didn't see a definition of "Time." What is it exactly? I hope RAZD dosen't mind my input here, perhaps if I answer this question well, I can spare him some "time." What do you know, right at the top of a Google search for "time definition" define:time - Google Search Usually, ages are measured in years, especially when they happened long ago. A year is the difference between one exact position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and when the next rotation places the Earth in the same position. The events between the two rotational positions are said to have happened at that year or that "time." A similar definition exists for day except now it is the Earth's rotation around it's axis instead of around the sun. Need I go on in detail? There are 365.224 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Year, day, hour, minute, and second, are all measures of "time." The tree rings and varves are counted between alternating layers of light and dark, or different compositions. Each layer is considered a year because each is related to how the Earth rotates around the sun. This is because of the difference between summer and winter due to the rotation around the sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis. For radiometric dating see: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia There you will find the equation that solves for time. It is in the form of whatever units are inputted, usually years, as defined above. I hope this helped. ABE - There is another definition for second, which correlates to the Earths rotations, it is (from Wikipedia):
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation which corresponds to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the Caesium-133 atom. I think it's neat that atoms both tell us the time, and when certain ones decay, tell us how old something is in years, a measure of time. ABE2 - Isn't the real debate between you stating the Earth has only made aproximately 6000 revolutions around the sun as opposed to what RAZD, myself and many others believe to be approximately 4,550,000,000 Earth revolutions around the sun? Isn't a demand for a definition of time an attempt to dodge the evidence RAZD has presented for the Earth going around the sun much more than 6000 times? Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Edited by anglagard, : speling Edited by anglagard, : Bring up time definition as dodge
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But, unless you can discredit or disprove that one exists, then the model has to be taken as equal to the "God plays no part in this..." model. Um, no. At least, not in science ... and this is a science forum, so we're talking about science. In science, you don't just walk in and throw up a model and get it taken on an equal footing with existing models. To be taken on an equal footing, yuor model must explain all the evidence at least as well ss the current model, predict new observations at least as well as the current model, and not involve adding any more complicating factors than the current model. Including an omnipotent being who can change any observation or physical law at any time for reasons unknow to us is a termendous complciating factor, and totally inappropriate in a scientific model (whether or not such a being actually exists, which is a question outside the purview of science). I suspect that your "model" makes no predictions, and I also suspect that your "model" cannot explain all the observations without invoking an incredible number of ad-hoc miracles, such as creatures that never hibernate suddenly hibernating and never-observed or hinted-at vegetation mats loaded with animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First, I didn't see a definition of "Time." What is it exactly? The common definition will do.
quote:Couple this with my statement you quoted: RAZD, msg 34 writes: Time is part of the observation of the universe that science is based on. The observation is of many multiples of periodic events that can be compared and correlated and that show "time" based on one set of data work equally to measure "time" based on other sets of data -- that makes it reproducable, repeatable, quantifiable and measurable. I would have thought it was pretty clear. Certainly anglagard had no problem with understanding the concept and what was meant by "time".
I've not tried to invalidate any data. I am simply pointing out that counting tree rings doesn't count time. And you can type that with a straight face? You're trying to use some pseudo-philosophical-illusional "what is existence" shuck and jive to pretend that the whole concept of what we measure as "time" doesn't exist, ... but your not trying to invalidate any data. ROFLOL. As anglagard pointed out, you are just trying to dodge the question. What is correct in your statement is that you have not invalidated the data ... NOR have you invalidated the time intervals that are measured by the data.
I'm also pointing out that the "GOD Doesn't play any part of this" Model isn't the only valid way of looking at the data. IF you think that a model that includes a deity/creator/beginner is in error, that's fine. But, unless you can discredit or disprove that one exists, then the model has to be taken as equal to the "God plays no part in this..." model. Ah yes, move #2 in the creationist handbook ... whenever you are unable to come up with any real argument claim that the other side is "removing god from the equation" --- whether they are or not. It's the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur and a strawman introduced to pretend to give your argument a shred of credibility. There is no {"GOD Doesn't play any part of this" Model} here, so stop with the shuck and jive evasion and transparent obfustication and try to see if you can deal with the reality.
I do enjoy the debate, and interaction with folks willing to discuss these issues. However, calling the opposing model a "fantasy" is a little like name calling, don't you think? No, it's calling a spade a spade. If I was going to imply an ad hominum name calling epithet I would have said something more like delusion. It is not fact, ergo it is fantasy. Now if you are going to argue that the fantasies you posited are fact, that would be delusion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : opyt we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hughes Inactive Member |
There you will find the equation that solves for time. It is in the form of whatever units are inputted, usually years, as defined above. I hope this helped. Not really. Everything you mentioned didn't define Time as being measure, but something else (sun, moon, earth, atoms). Movement through space, and passage of time, from our perspective doesn't define what it is. I found this definition helpful:
Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. This is the realist view, to which Isaac Newton subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured. A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, in which time, rather than a thing to be measured, is part of the measuring system. The Oxford English Dictionary defines time as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole." Time - Wikipedia
They help, but "progress of existence and events" still doesn't measure time.IS time apart of a structure of the universe? If so, what is this structure? IS time an "intellectual structure"? What ever that's supposed to mean. ABE2 - Isn't the real debate between you stating the Earth has only made aproximately 6000 revolutions around the sun as opposed to what RAZD, myself and many others believe to be approximately 4,550,000,000 Earth revolutions around the sun? Isn't a demand for a definition of time an attempt to dodge the evidence RAZD has presented for the Earth going around the sun much more than 6000 times? I've not stated how old the earth is. And to be honest I don't know. I am more skeptical of the claim that millions of years have past than thousands. But, just because I'm skeptical, doesn't mean I'm claiming anything to be true or not. The "demand" for the definition of time is simply to start at the beginning. If it's time we are saying that is tested, what is it we are discussing? What is time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I don't understand all of this fuss over the definition of time.
We measure time. We measure it with great precision. The ways that we use to measure time define it very well. Anybody who knows how to measure time, knows what time is. The arguments as to whether time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe - those are just foolish word games. We understand the meaning of "time" far better than we understand the meaning of "fundamental" or "structure" or "universe".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Ok, enough, the definition of time itself is now declared to be off topic in this thread.
Any further such nonsense from you "hughes" will result in a suspension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Hughes,
AdminNosy has already quite properly ruled a discussion of the nature of time as off-topic, but I'd like to comment on a larger pattern displayed by your contributions here at EvC. Much of your characterization of ID in another thread was about what it didn't explain, your position being the evolution couldn't explain these things, either. In this thread you seem to be taking the position that we can't really assign ancient ages to anything because time is so mysterious. You'll generally find that extremely general approaches to rebuttal are ruled off-topic. This is because they could be used in any thread on any topic, and have a strong tendency to draw discussion off the original topic. In the case of time, for example, you could raise that issue in any number of threads about evolution, about geology, about cosmology, and so forth. For this reason we tend to limit discussion of such topics to specific threads opened to discuss them specifically. Your general approach of "Well, I don't really believe that's the type of thing we can know anything about," fits into this category. EvC Forum is a science site intended to explore Creationism's claim to be legitimate science. The belief that study, experiment and observation lead to improved insights is inherent in science. If you believe this isn't the case then you are free to propose a thread on this topic, but taking this belief to other threads will likely be ruled off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've not stated how old the earth is. And to be honest I don't know. I am more skeptical of the claim that millions of years have past than thousands. The question is whether you are going to deal with the issue or not, especially as YOU were the one to raise the issue: Message 190 Hughes writes: As you probably are familiar with the concept of Calibration. If your instruments aren't calibrated correctly, your measurements will be off, and will lead to false data. Calibration is always done by comparing a known to be accurate tool, to one that needs to be calibrated. On the topic of time, it's fair to ask, how is it even conceivable to calibrate a million year or even a billion year old measuring device? So even you are using years as the measurment of time, and you are talking about calibrating that measurement into the past. How do you calibrate a million years? This thread is the start -- one year at a time, layer by layer, correlation by correlation, up to 567,700 years. When we get to that point then we can look at other calibrations and correlations, as we will have formed a basis on which to build. So it is time to stop shuckin and jivin and to start dealing with the issue -- the one YOU raised. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hughes Inactive Member |
Wow. I guess I'll analyze the nature of time on my own "time."
How do you calibrate a million years? Not possible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024