|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
92 million years I think. But of course, this is going all the way back to when there wasn't a grain of salt in the ocean, a situation that never was even in the naturalistic history of the oceans. Really?
But hey, if RAZD can correlate a 8k year old tree with the 4,5Ba of the earth, why couldn't I correlate a maximum of 92Ma with a 6k year old earth ? I don't think you're using the word "correlate" correctly. And the answer would be that the Earth can be older than some of its contents but not younger.
Didn't we discuss this once in another thread ? Those cases where something is only a sign of age if you presuppose it's naturalistic origin ? We did. And I drew a distinction between cases where God would have to create the Earth looking old in order to fulfill his plan (e.g. salt in the oceans, the existence of topsoil) and cases where the only thing that this achieves is to mess with the heads of geologists. I admit that the salinity of the ocean falls into the first category.
One exception per million years (random number) does not negate the fact, that for all intents and purposes the assumption that the current conditions are representative of how it has generally always been. But however rare and exceptional these circumstances may have been, they remain of significance because what was rare and exceptional about them was that they involved the deposition of staggeringly huge amount of halites. The Louann Salt, for example, covers 800,000 square kilometers and is four kilometers deep. That's seven quadrillion tonnes of salt. Are we meant to ignore that simply because the time it spent forming was brief compared to the vast extent of geological time? It's as though someone observed that I was not presently eating, and concluded that I must have starved to death years ago. I point out that I spend at least half an hour a day shoveling food into my mouth. He replies that the fact that I rarely eat (only about 2% of the time, as I admit) does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes the current conditions are "representative of how it has generally always been". Yes ... me not eating is "representative of how it has generally always been" ... but the exceptions, however rare by comparison, are the times that I spend eating. --- Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: 92 million years I think. But of course, this is going all the way back to when there wasn't a grain of salt in the ocean, a situation that never was even in the naturalistic history of the oceans. Even assuming that the ocean salinity age estimate were valid, it isn't really a dating technique is it? We could say that the oceans are less than ninety something million years old, but we cannot date anything else. Unless there is possibility of finding samples of ancient ocean water with its salinity preserved, how would we date anything. We cannot, for example, use ocean salinity to date the Great Sphinx to show that it is younger that 4400 years old. We just know that the Sphinx and everything else are less than ninety or so million years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zubbbra25 Junior Member (Idle past 4133 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
They have this page (Age of the earth - creation.com) where they pretty much regrouped a whole lot of subjects they write about all in one list, but it's a mixed bag. Some relate pretty well with the age of earth such as it's magnetic field, salt in oceans, etc. and could be regrouped into a thread similar to RAZD's, while others are very peripheric; for example ''DNA in ancient fossils'' (as Taq said, just because you find something young on the earth doesn't mean the earth is young) Slevesque, these are the same old pratts that are shown everywhere... All they do is show 'what ifs'. I mean they're still using magnetic decay as a 'proof'? By throwing a bunch of pratts into a list does nothing to show the earth is 6000 years old, all it does is show a list of things that YEC have tried to use to show the earth is 6000 years old, and failed. If, on the other hand, you could show using various independant methods for instance, that every stratigraphic layer was 4350 years old as consistent with the flud, and all fossils found within those layers was 4350 years old. That would be an interesting case. The case of 'what ifs' doesn't work. If you claim the earth is 6000 years old, the burden of proof is on you. And EVERY dating method you employ needs to be consistent with this. You can not pick and choose. ABE: Just a link to address many of those 'proofs' for a young-earth: Talk origins young-earth proofs Edited by Zubbbra25, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. And the accumulation of aluminum in the oceans gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth - very young. Like less than 150 years, Slevesque. And that age is confirmed to be true, because you don't know a single person who worked on clipper ships before 1900. Your salt argument is just this absurd. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Since the supposed age of the rock is older than my age of the ocean, there's obviously something wrong with your assumptions. What are the assumptions and why are they wrong? I have shown why the assumptions of salinity dating are wrong, so why don't you try and do the same for U/Pb dating of zircons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And even if the zircon evidence was wrong, uranium halos exist.
Once again, a single fact destroys young earth. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll adress this:
You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away. This just shows you don't really want to have an intelligent discussion. Because I give three back to back replies right, trying to get w worthwhile discussion going, and you come in with this nonesense that I ''run away''. All the while, very few of you are really cutting down to the fact and implications of the salt-in-sea issue. Instead you just go around hand-waving and quite frankly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to get it through why a maximum of 92 million years for the age the oceans on this planet is a problem for a 4,5Byo earth but fits with the idea of a young earth. Really, if some of you can't see that, there's no point in me discussing with you. Two however, did go on to discuss the facts. Dr.A's concern about halite depositions will be answered in the appropriate thread. Taq, unfortunately, did not see the difference between salt concentration and salt accumulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Even assuming that the ocean salinity age estimate were valid, it isn't really a dating technique is it? We could say that the oceans are less than ninety something million years old, but we cannot date anything else. Read my very first post in this thread, to see how this ocean salinity issue fits in the whole web of things. I never pretended that this was a dating technique that could be applied on a wide range of things. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Slevesque, these are the same old pratts that are shown everywhere... All they do is show 'what ifs'. I mean they're still using magnetic decay as a 'proof'? That's because while talkorigins still talk about Barnes 30 year old arguments as if they were still the cutting-edge creationist view, while on the other end of the spectrum, creationists actually have continued to develop the idea and answer the critics.
If, on the other hand, you could show using various independant methods for instance, that every stratigraphic layer was 4350 years old as consistent with the flud, and all fossils found within those layers was 4350 years old. That would be an interesting case. The case of 'what ifs' doesn't work. If you claim the earth is 6000 years old, the burden of proof is on you. And EVERY dating method you employ needs to be consistent with this. You can not pick and choose. Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time. Also, notice I haven't used a single 'what if' the whole time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
And the accumulation of aluminum in the oceans gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth - very young. Like less than 150 years, Slevesque. And that age is confirmed to be true, because you don't know a single person who worked on clipper ships before 1900. Your salt argument is just this absurd. You'll have to show me your math doc, 'cause I do think that if you take the input and the OUTPUT of Aluminium in the ocean, it comes around at a near equilibrium. Which isn't the case with Sodium. Which is why the argument is based on sodium accumulation, not aluminium accumulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
What are the assumptions and why are they wrong? I have shown why the assumptions of salinity dating are wrong, so why don't you try and do the same for U/Pb dating of zircons? I'm sorry, but I wasn't very impressed by your total misunderstanding of the issue, when you uterly destroyed a 'salinity concentration' strawman. I know salinity changes when you had water, but I also know it doesn't change the amount of Na+ in the water. AbE: Let's discuss the salty oceans first, then we'll talk about radiometric dating and how the helium diffusion in zircons comes into play. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
slevesque writes: Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. Sure. Let's start with the saline giants.
Dr A writes: Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood? I'm fascinated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
But however rare and exceptional these circumstances may have been, they remain of significance because what was rare and exceptional about them was that they involved the deposition of staggeringly huge amount of halites. The Louann Salt, for example, covers 800,000 square kilometers and is four kilometers deep. That's seven quadrillion tonnes of salt. Are we meant to ignore that simply because the time it spent forming was brief compared to the vast extent of geological time? Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed:
quote: quote: The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma For Evolutionists
It's as though someone observed that I was not presently eating, and concluded that I must have starved to death years ago. I point out that I spend at least half an hour a day shoveling food into my mouth. He replies that the fact that I rarely eat (only about 2% of the time, as I admit) does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes the current conditions are "representative of how it has generally always been". Yes ... me not eating is "representative of how it has generally always been" ... but the exceptions, however rare by comparison, are the times that I spend eating. Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions')
Incidentally, would you like to speculate on how these massive evaporite deposits of soluble minerals are formed during a global flood? I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess. I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You quote me and yet you don't address what you quoted. ringo writes:
This just shows you don't really want to have an intelligent discussion. Because I give three back to back replies right, trying to get w worthwhile discussion going, and you come in with this nonesense that I ''run away''. You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away. Here's what I said in Message 43:
quote:That's what you're running away from. You claim that you "could" do a correlation thread like RAZD's but you won't because we'd "probably start by taking each one individually, and show where [we] think the reasoning is flawed in each one." Yes, that's exactly what we'd do, because that's how intelligent discussion works. If you are interested in intelligent discussion, you need to address the inconsistencies in each of your methods and the inconsistencies between your methods. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Except, you didn't really read Humphreys paper have you ? Or else you would have seen that halite deposition is adressed: It is. And in just the way that I criticized. I quote:
quote: You see? Because it isn't happening now somehow we can discount the known, certain, indisputable fact that it happened in the past. Quadrillions of tonnes of salt are just so much chopped liver.
Yet, there would be reason for doubt if, after I questioned where you get all those calories for your daily movement, you would answer ''I always eat an apple in the morning''. (Which is the equivalent in your analogy of the halite depositions') Which would be a fair analogy if I claimed that the formation of saline giants was the only or principal output of sodium. To continue your analogy, the proposition that I eat an apple a day would not contradict the proposition that I also eat a three-course dinner every day.
I'm no expert, but if you say these come from the oceans, the same mechanism probably would apply in the case of a global flood. Random guess. To call that guess "random" is much too kind. I can think of plenty of other less flattering adjectives. Try again. The Louann Salt is four kilometers deep. The evaporation of a kilometer of seawater would produce a mere fourteen meters of minerals. And you suggest that this saline giant was produced by a lot of rain. Of water. Which dissolves water-soluble minerals. Such as salt. Do I wake or sleep?
I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature. Also, let us know if you stumble across anything in "flood geology" having any predictive power whatsoever.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024