Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 136 of 357 (374143)
01-03-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
Massive unsupported subjects. Convincing.
Pick one of these (any one) and develop the logic on how it exclusively demonstrate a young earth and stick around to defend it, if you are able. No cut-n-paste, massive unsupported lists or link diarrhea.
This thread is about age correlations there other threads concerning young/old earth such as:
REAL Flood Geology
Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
Or start your own if you are prepared.
You are welcome here. There are very very few YEC geology oriented posters here and those that are seem to be all fired up after reading some YEC propaganda. They quickly melt and run away after being exposed to some daylight.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:11 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:06 PM iceage has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 137 of 357 (374149)
01-03-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:16 PM


Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
jesusfighter writes:
As such, its completely unreliable to trust a Geologist who adheres to radiometric dating procedures to attempt to prove the age of a rock being such and such an age, since the methods do not provide that such a benefit to the Geologist.
The oil industry seems to trust modern geology, as does the mineral exploration industry. Paleontologist use dating to predict where to find fossils, with positive results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:16 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 3:21 PM iceage has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 138 of 357 (374152)
01-03-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
Welcome to the fray JesusFighter.
One of the things we like to do on this forum is stick to the topic laid out in the original post -- in this case the correlations between various dating methods, including radiometric and actual counting of actual annual layers. Correlations that match not just for dates, but for historic occurrances and climate, things that could not be explained by random error in every method.
Your post does not address this issue. If you do want to address this issue you can start with an explanation for the correlations between the first two dendrochronologies, that match for age, climate and marker events like the little ice age. IF you can develop a thesis that shows "Dendrochronological failures" for these two systems from opposite sides of the earth then you can move on to explain why we see the SAME correlations in diatom\clay varves at the bottom of a lake in Japan.
Message 134
The problem is not the dating methods, known as Radiometric dating and Polonium Argon dating. They do have some great benefits, but trying to date aging rocks and the like is problematic, and simply impossible.
There are other threads where you can discuss these issue more freely. This is not part of the correlation issue involved in this thread -- it involves mostly annual dating methods and only mentions radiometric ones (Carbon-14, Thorium-230 and Protactinium-231) to show that they too arrive at the same dates as the annual systems.
I suggest Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages as a starting point, as it deals mostly with radiometric dating.
As a side note, all threads are cut off at about 300 posts (why this one is on Part III - the other two were maxed out before any creationist posed a single plausible correlation that showed how every system could simultaneously be in significant error but have the same climate and other correlations at the same times), and thus the emphasis on staying on topic rather than wasting posts on off-topic (even if related) posts.
Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:11 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 139 of 357 (374162)
01-03-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:16 PM


Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
JesusFighter writes:
The problem is not the dating methods, known as Radiometric dating and Polonium Argon dating.
Please tell me more about this Polonium Argon dating.
--Percy
PS - Oops, RAZD is right, it's off-topic. Please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25] and tell us all about this Polonium Argon dating.
Edited by Percy, : Add PS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:16 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 01-03-2007 8:53 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 143 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:14 PM Percy has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 140 of 357 (374207)
01-03-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-03-2007 7:22 PM


Polonium Argon
Probably done by measuring potassium halos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:22 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:13 PM JonF has not replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 357 (374224)
01-03-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by RAZD
01-03-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
I'm sorry you're gonna make me call an Ambiguity fallacy on that one.
I need examples, and you've failed to give me any solid ones here.
Avoiding the issue does not constitute as a valid answer.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 7:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 10:57 PM Casey Powell has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 357 (374225)
01-03-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by JonF
01-03-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Polonium Argon
Right Polonium Argon....
slipping here.
Potassium Argon.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 01-03-2007 8:53 PM JonF has not replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 357 (374228)
01-03-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-03-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
I thought you wise guys knew all the dating methods....what do you need me a meager YECS to explain to you?
Oh yeah, and Steno's methods and principles were never meant to actually directly date rocks FYI!
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:22 PM Percy has not replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 357 (374234)
01-03-2007 9:21 PM


I'm looking forward to addressing the articles that say, "no evidence for a Young Earth."
I've got a whole SLEW of evidence that proves a Young Earth.
Cherry Lewis refutes the chrondite meteorite "dating game." YAHHHH!
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Admin, posted 01-03-2007 9:27 PM Casey Powell has not replied
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 11:18 PM Casey Powell has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 145 of 357 (374237)
01-03-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 9:21 PM


Hi Casey Powell aka JesusFighter,
I'm going to merge your two accounts and suspend you for an additional hour. In addition to your examination of rules 4, 7 and 10, this time please also examine rule 9.
Violations at this rate and at this level are unacceptable. The next violation will result in permanent suspension.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:21 PM Casey Powell has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 146 of 357 (374264)
01-03-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 9:12 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
I need examples, and you've failed to give me any solid ones here.
Instead of coming in like gang-busters full of sound and fury signifying nothing, try reading the OP.
Message 1
Your failure to read the examples already provided is not my fault.
Try to actually deal with them step by step. So far all you have provided is braggado and arrogance without a single iota of evidence or intellectually valid information to contradict a single dating method.
This is a science thread, and that means you need to substantiate your position with evidence. Real evidence.
You can't just say dendrochonology is full of errors you need to demonstrate it, document it, show how it {could\would\should} be corrected to match your ignorant belief of a young earth in spite of the evidence that shows absolutely no difference in the kinds of rings involved and in spite of the fact that the european oak rings have been independently validated by other evidence back to ~3000 BC (~5,000 years ago) and the ones older than that look no different than those first 5,000 years worth.
You also need to address the topic of the correlations or you are not dealing with the issue of this topic but your own private fantasy about dating methods.
So far, all you have done on this thread (and others) is waste band-width. A lot of band-width. I fully expect you to waste another 50 or 60 posts AT LEAST on this topic with more band-width wasting irrelevant and inconsequential self-indulgent and ignorant blather, because so far you haven't displayed the ability to add 2 plus 2 and come up with anything greater than 2.
Ignorance combined with pride are like that. It also, fortunately, has absolutely no effect on reality.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : poyt

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:12 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 3:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 147 of 357 (374274)
01-03-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 9:21 PM


Evidence FOR is not enough
I've got a whole SLEW of evidence that proves a Young Earth.
No, you have a bunch of evidence that is consistent with a young earth but it proves nothing.
It is easy to find evidence FOR young PORTIONS of the earth on a much older earth, due to the nature of tectonics and the geology of the earth, so this proves nothing but a willingness to be ignorant about, and denial of, evidence for an older earth.
Evidence FOR a concept is not enough to validate it, as you also have to deal with evidence that REFUTES the concept.
Example 1: there is evidence that supports a flat earth. The earth is not flat as there is abundant and conclusive evidence that shows it is an oblate spheroid.
Example 2: there is evidence that the sun orbits the earth and the earth is the center of the universe. The earth is not the center of the universe or even the solar system and there is abundant and conclusive evidence that shows it orbits the sun as the third rock in the solar system.
Both these concepts are invalidated by contradicting evidence that refutes and disproves the concepts. The concepts cannot be true and have this contradictory evidence be true as well.
Cherry Lewis ...
Is another argument from authority, a logical fallacy common to creationists brought up on the grand-daddy of all arguments from authority. WHO says something is totally irrelevant (hence your whole rant on Blythe is totally irrelevant as it does not deal with WHAT evolution is about).
Saying that he "refutes the chrondite meteorite 'dating game'" is not evidence, but unsubstantiated assertion - another creationist favorite, apparently because they seem totally unfamiliar with the concept of substantiating evidence actually being used to support an argument.
Tree rings alone refute and invalidate the young earth concept. Deal with it.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 9:21 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 148 of 357 (374293)
01-04-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
We have salt in the seas, the Earth's magnetic field, Comets, and Aging the Solar System, the Kuiper Belt, the Oort comet cloud problems for Evolutionists, Saturns Rings, Mercury (the tiny planet that causes big problems for Emo Evos), The speedy star changes, exploding stars, extrasolar planets, venus, Helium, a steady sun, solar neutrinos, Dendrochronological failures, eroding ages, plutons and their rapid cooling, microscopic diamonds, rapid granite formation, rapid rocks, sandy stripes, instant petrified wood, rapid petrification of wood, limestone caves, stalactite rapidity, Forests growing on water, rapid ice building, etc.!
yes, those are all good examples of other hovind pratts. thank you for contributing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:11 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 3:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 357 (374448)
01-04-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
01-03-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Young earth, it's bogus
Wait a minute, you mean....that theres as much evidence for Evolution as there is for a Flat Earth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Darwin, the most famous promoter of evolutionism.
Flat-Earth HeyDay Came with Darwin
The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.
Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."
Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.
Who invented the idea of a flat Earth? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Wow, typical that you commit an error, then blame it on someone else.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 10:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 3:46 PM Casey Powell has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 357 (374449)
01-04-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by iceage
01-03-2007 6:55 PM


Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
Yay for Propaganda and Political ideas like Paleontology!
Is another argument from authority, a logical fallacy common to creationists brought up on the grand-daddy of all arguments from authority. WHO says something is totally irrelevant (hence your whole rant on Blythe is totally irrelevant as it does not deal with WHAT evolution is about).
Saying that he "refutes the chrondite meteorite 'dating game'" is not evidence, but unsubstantiated assertion - another creationist favorite, apparently because they seem totally unfamiliar with the concept of substantiating evidence actually being used to support an argument.
Tree rings alone refute and invalidate the young earth concept. Deal with it.
Enjoy.
Alright, lets get rid of the Dedronchronology nonsense first. By the way, you keep faultily blaming my concepts of the Blythe deal here on an appeal to authority when thats not my intent here. Blythe is a YECS, and I'm demonstrating that you don't hold a monopoly on the concepts, and that in fact your theory actually intellectually dishonestly applied them to Naturalism, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the wrong side. YECS holds the monopoly instead. And appeals to authority of that nature are valid arguments!
The oldest living trees in the world are the Bristlecone Pines, which are 4723 years old. You're way off here.
Another problem...well it deals with the method you use. Its a circular reasoning fallacy:
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ”dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ”clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ”carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).
The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ”incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ”age’). So the carbon ”date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ”re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
Secondly, you might be able to help me find this evidence for a flat earth....just can't seem to pull it up when I google it.
If thats the best evidence you've got, I'm not in the least bit impressed with the Old Earth Arguments at all.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : rendered large cut/paste invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by iceage, posted 01-03-2007 6:55 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Coragyps, posted 01-04-2007 3:38 PM Casey Powell has replied
 Message 166 by iceage, posted 01-04-2007 4:06 PM Casey Powell has replied
 Message 175 by AdminModulous, posted 01-04-2007 4:21 PM Casey Powell has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024