Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 126 (546045)
02-07-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 12:36 AM


Re: ...
Is this thread about refuting PRATT's for the 1001'th time, or is it about ripping on a sad, confused, creationist who doesn't understand his own arguments?
Your question epitomizes the phrase "A distinction without a difference".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 12:36 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 126 (546048)
02-07-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Coyote. This dirt dating thing intrigues me. Is there a website chart and other data where one can read up on this as to the continuity of it etc? Thanks.
Yes, Buzsaw. Yes, there are indeed websites that explain the dating methods of geologists. Of course there are. Yes. Of course there are. Duh.
There is also this wonderful website, I don't know if you've heard of it, where you can look up the answers to this and other similar questions that might perplex you. It's called Google.
* bangs head repeatedly on desk *
You sit there at your computer with an inconceivably vast source of information literally at your fingertips and you're asking us to do your research for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 126 (546062)
02-08-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Doc Adequate, (sometimes inadequate, but thanks anyhow), FYI, I did a google search before I made the original request to Coyote in response to the claim and found nothing that would help.
You ... searched ... the ... Internet ... and couldn't find anything about geological dating methods?
How?
I cannot conceive by what possible ineptitude someone can search the internet for information about dating methods and not find any information about dating methods.
Do creationists have some special secret version of Google all of their own which is guaranteed not to expose them to any factual information whatsoever? If so, that would explain a lot.
On the side, is so much banging of the head what makes you so cranky? I'm very sorry about that.
I attribute my crankiness to the lamentable proliferation of bleedin' idiots.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bluescat48, posted 02-08-2010 12:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 6:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 126 (546708)
02-13-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 8:16 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Coyote. Does it really take care of it?
Logically, the amount of carbon 14 in an alleged Buz/Bible pre--flood atmosphere would affect pre-flood carbon dating whereas tree ring dating would would not be affected nearly as significantly by a changed atmosphere, being that there would be seasons in both atmospheres effecting tree rings, albeit less difference in global seasonal temperatures in a canopy atmosphere than we now have, post flood.
Am I making sense here to you?
It makes sense, but it's an own goal.
Consider the following two methods of dating:
(a) Looking at raw uncalibrated carbon dates.
(b) Looking at tree ring growth.
Now, as Coyote said, these agree within 10%. So you need not only a magical process to mess with radiometric dating, but also a magical process (the same one or a different one) which messes with tree growth in such a way as to keep the two methods in close agreement with each other.
Now, radioactive decay and tree growth are two separate processes, of course, so there's no reason why they should both be put wrong in such a way as to still agree with one another.
Coinidence, you say? Well, now let's consider a third dating method.
Consider varves in glacier-fed lakes. We observe today that one varve is laid down in such lakes every year. So we can take a sediment core from such a lake, and unless something at some point in the past has been messing with the deposition of sediment in proglacial lakes, we can count down one year per varve, so that the 5,000th varve down was formed 5,000 years ago.
Now, here's the thing. The sediment in these lakes contains organic material, such as pollen. So we can carbon-date each varve as well as dating it just by counting. And guess what, the two methods are once again in good agreement.
So now we need another magical process, or the same one again, to screw with sedimentary deposition in glacial lakes in such a way as to keep it in lock-step with the way that tree-ring growth has been screwed with, which is in lock-step with the way that radioactive decay has been screwed with.
Coincidence ... ?
---
Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you have a digital watch, a pendulum clock, and a water-clock. The guy who sold them to you assured you that they were all guaranteed to be absolutely shockproof. Being skeptical, you test this by shaking them, subjecting them to heat, throwing them in the fire, hitting them with hammers, throwing them in the sea, firing them out of cannons ... and a day after you've done all this, they're still all telling the same time. Would you conclude, in the light of this fact, that they were all broken, but that coincidentally the three very different mechanisms had all, as a result of this rough treatment, malfunctioned so that they all still told the same time whenever you consulted them --- or would you conclude that they were all still working, and that the salesman had told you the truth?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 126 (546715)
02-13-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by anglagard
02-13-2010 1:19 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Don't forget annual calcite accumulation in caves, annual layers in ice sheets, and annual isotope differentiation in confined aquifers and ....
But I'm not so sure about those. The thing about the varves in proglacial lakes is that since they contain organic material we can show a correlation between the age we get by counting varves and the age we get by carbon dating.
I don't know how we'd go about showing a correlation between the things you've mentioned and carbon dating or dendrochronology or deposition of varves.
They might suggest an old(er than creationists admit) Earth, but unless you know something I don't, they don't make the specific point I was trying to make, which is that anything screwing with dating methods would have to screw with radioactive decay and the growth of trees and the deposition of sediments in such a way that, by some enormous fluke, although they're all wrong, they all still agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:19 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 6:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 126 (546726)
02-13-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by anglagard
02-13-2010 6:09 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Admittedly, I am painting a broader brush than any immediate year-to-year correlation between tree rings, varves, and the relationship between C12/C13/C14. What I am looking at is the correlation between climate as inferred from O16/O17/O18 ratios, often related to volcanic events, to the results from dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating.
Ah, I think I see your point. If we can see something being produced annually, and it contains evidence as to the climate, then we can indeed demonstrate a correlation with dendrochronology. If (for example) layers of ice, when dated according to counting one layer per year, show the same climatological evidence as counting tree rings, then there is indeed a correlation. Why, short of another amazing coincidence, should they both show the same year as being particularly hot or cold unless they're keeping accurate time?
Further elaboration, while needed to properly explain, must await a bit of time as it will result in a RAZD-sized post.
I await it with interest.
Shouldn't all this be on another thread?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 6:09 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 126 (546800)
02-13-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Thus two (perhaps) factors relative to dendrochronology.
1) More robust, healthier, and hardier plant life, including trees.
...
Perhaps, like men, etc, the life span and hardiness of trees began (I say began) to deterioriate after the waters abated.
But it's not about the life span of trees, just about the fact that they produce one ring a year.
What you need is a way to mess with this in such a way that it agrees with carbon dating, which you also need to mess with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 126 (546967)
02-15-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
02-15-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Dating dirt
My position is that if many of the trees survived the flood there would be no gaps and Carbon dating would show older dates than tests would indicate.
I understood the first part, but not the second. Sure, if the trees survived the Flood there wouldn't be any gaps. But why would this screw with carbon dating? Why would it even screw with dendrochronology?
Further, consider this important factor relative to the unique Buzsaw Hypothesis.
Ah yes, the "unique Buzsaw Hypothesis".
Why is it so "unique"? Can't you even manage to convince your own fellow-creationists to swallow it?
Further yet, I see RAZD, in his latest dendrocronolical science thread, emphasised the corroboration factor relative to dating. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I harp on corroboration incessantly, yet nobody pays any attention to the fact that there are numerous corroborating factors relative to the veracity of the Biblical record.
Except for the bits that we're actually arguing about. Sure, some things in the Bible are good history. But some of them appear to be fairy-stories. And the former do not corroborate the latter. I could take the Las Vegas phone directory and bind it in the same volume with Alice In Wonderland, but the unimpeachable accuracy of the telephone directory wouldn't support one word of the works of Lewis Carrol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2010 11:45 AM Buzsaw 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