|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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.!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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. That would be the problem for Evolutionists. Radiometric dating procedures are impossible to determine an old Earth, since rocks can not be accurately dated! The measurements are based on presuppositional ideas that the Earth has to be such and such an age, and if it goes beyond their range for how old the Earth is, they try to force the age of the rock to be what they want it to be, no matter whether they date it to be 3 million + or - the amount of years from the range of the data gathered. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Right Polonium Argon....
slipping here. Potassium Argon. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Much better examples than what you've got to show. Talk...and more Talk, and added Hype Origins doesn't provide too much in these regards.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
I provided documentation. Thanks for providing it from AIG as well. I typically use CMI, since its more updated however.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 - (citing from the previous post here!) Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Usually not the KJV. But the words of "it" and "and" being put in a few different areas don't concern me, so its not much different.
Lets try some common sense: Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Do women grind at night or in the day time? I don't think we're talking about the club, so probably in the day time. Do men work in the field at night or in the day time? It says they are "to be in the field." But...what do you suppose they're doing in the field? Making out or something? No, they're working! And men work in the field in the day time, where they can actually see what they're doing. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
I'm using the one you're using!
Besides they all say the same thing. Its like, well lets see, I read Garfield the Cartoon here in the Newspaper, but its reprinted in another article. Odie said "Ow" when Garfield stepped on his foot in one, and Odie said, "Youch" when Garfield stepped on his foot in the other. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Well Brian, thats what Common Sense is good for. Some people use it, and some people don't.
Why would they have to grind during the day? Cause they're not hangin' at da club. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
You obviously don't know how to use the english language either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
No, common sense would be that people usually work in the day time, and aren't stupid enough to be eaten by bears at night when they can't see them. Do you think they've got rifles sitting by their front porch or something? This is the 1st century A.D.
The "What is 'is'" senselessness propagated by Bill Clinton is not of good use here. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024