Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

You are misinterpreting Isaacs, whether out of dishonesty or mere carelessness I shall not attempt to guess.Isaacs quotes them, perfectly accurately, as saying that there is evidence for "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay".Now if you will look up just above that, to the numbered points, you will see that he writes: So he does say, quite clearly, that the creationists nurture an unproven fantasy that "500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" does not actually indicate that the rocks are 500 million years old. There is nothing misleading there. He is perfectly upfront about their wish to entertain unproven conjectures in a desperate attempt to ignore their own data. But he also notes that they do at least admit the quantity of decay which has taken place --- which they do. "500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" is word for word what they wrote.Now, would you like to address the topic?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Au contraire, hasty one.As a matter of fact, the quote by Randy Isaac is entirely consistent with the larger quote you provide. Both quot4es acknowledge 500 million years of radioactive decay at today's rates. Randy goes on to suggest that some creationists had previously argued that there had been less decay even based on current decay rates.Surely you noticed the phrase "at today's rates" in both references.Of course the quote you provided from the RATE report does not even address that suggestion in the second sentence, and Randy Isaac made no claim that his second sentence was lifted from the report. So the question is whether or not the second statement is true. Note that the second statement refers to creationist claims made prior to the RATE project.

So, under certain circumstances, one isotope of beryllium can change its decay rate by as much as 1.5%.I don't think that's gonna be enough to save you. Especially as ⁷Be has a half-life of 53 days and is therefore not used in radiometric dating. Now, if you could find a way to speed up uranium decay a millionfold, you might be on to something. He appears to be right.---The creationist sources you cite do not claim that volcanism can change decay rates, so I am at a loss to know why you think it does, or why you referenced them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Thanks for pointing out I was getting off-topic. I should've read more carefully to recognize that was the main topic and not just the methods themselves, my apologies.Concerning this point in particular though, first of all, do they really all agree with one another apart from indicating a minimum age to life on earth? And if not, then that just suggests scientists are trying to find any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth. Brent Dalrymple points out a number of previous attempts that got debunked in "The Age of the Earth", the section on early attempts at dating the earth. They consistently failed because of (A) a belief in constancy per Uniformitarianism, and (B) inadequate consideration of all possible factors. Examples include De Maillet's theory on sea decline, Kelvin's theory on cooling of the earth and sun, and George Darwin's moon origin theory. It's online here starting at page 25:The Age of the Earth - G. Brent Dalrymple - Google BooksSecondly, everything basically falls into 3 categories that I can see:(1) Radiometric isotope dating (Message 11).
(2) Dendrochronology (Message 2, 3, 4, 5) and coral dating (Message 10).
(3) Depositional rates (Message 6, 7, 8, 9).Why all 3 would be thrown off though is pretty easy to explain via a global Flood and previous canopy surrounding the earth, both of which are well-evidenced in the fossil record.We know ancient life was simultaneously extinguished although scientists dislike considering a Flood was involved, and prefer to hypothesize about meteor impacts or underwater volcanoes. They assume multiple huge catastrophes like the Permian-Triassic extinction event, Devonian extinction, Ordovician-Silurian extinction, Cretaceous extinction event, Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and Pre-Cambrian mass extinction event.
Catastrophism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Mass extinction facts and information from National GeographicWe also know earth's atmosphere was once much thicker than it is today, and that oxygen levels were 50% higher resulting in huge insects in earth's past.
Canopy theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceA Pre-Flood Canopy would result in higher oxygen levels and initial daughter isotope levels, affecting both radiometric dating and dendrochronology. The Flood itself should affect radiometric dating and depositional rates especially. As I pointed out in Message 93, there appears evidence that the sediment layers were not laid down over long periods but rather by a massive Flood at one point (Point 3, Message 6, 7, 8, 9). And such a Flood would alter isotope decay rates as well, especially if volcanic activity was involved. It would fossilize pretty much everything at once and lay down multiple layers of sediment in a short amount of time - layers scientists today assume were laid down gradually over long periods.In summary, I think the combined explanation of a Pre-Flood Canopy coupled with a global Flood serves to explain why all 3 dating methods would be substantially altered to account for a recent date to life on earth. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

The Biblical Flood has been totally and completely refuted as has any absurd vapor canopy. Either are simply non starters and covered in other threads.They would be irrelevant in this thread even if they were true.

Well, the thread asked for an answer and that's the answer, both Biblically and as I see it from scientific evidence. If the thread wants to consider them inadequate so be it, but that appears the logical Biblical theory for why all 3 methods would be thrown off from a Creationist's standpoint - I doubt you'll hear any other theories.It would explain why geologic layers worldwide were laid down rapidly at once and thus geologic dating was caused by a Flood at once. Ice cores were likely the end result of the Flood as well, and caused instantaneously rather than the result of slow, gradual processes.It would explain why fossilization has occurred worldwide, an improbability given that depositional rates are too minimal to fossilize anything. You need to cover something very rapidly to prevent bacteria/scavengers and erosive forces from destroying it so it can be fossilized. It would explain why fossilized footprints exist in sandstone and even fossilized raindrops, showing the fossilization was instant.
Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceIt would explain the mixing of fossil deposits with animals and plants from all climate zones worldwide, a point made in 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity'. That's not something that makes sense under other theories but a global Flood.
Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceIt would explain stasis in the fossil record and lack of transitions that led to Punctuated Equilibrium being hypothesized.
Punctuated equilibrium - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceIt would explain why the human-apes theory has fallen apart over the past decade:
Transitional form - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceTo me this appears a theory I can't easily debunk and to my mind is a better fit with all the evidence I see than Evolutionary Theory. To me it is more reasonable than Evolution from a logical standpoint since Evolution can't account for a number of otherwise puzzling factors.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Too bad for you then that the Biblical Flood never happened.For a total absolute refutation of the Biblical Flood myths see No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood.Edited by jar, : add the link.

So far as I'm concerned, Macroevolution never happened. It's a myth that was always pure speculation interpreted by the minds of some philosophers who labeled it science and instituted it in law before it was ever proven. They've been trying to persuade everyone their pet theory is science ever since then. Despite their best attempts 40-50% of Americans remain unconvinced over a century later.I see better evidence for core created species than a common ancestor given the fossil record, sterility in interspeciary breeding, and rapid microevolutionary rates.EDIT: I just saw your mention of the other thread and will take a look at it, thanks.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Hi Jzyehoshua Rare and minute, curiously, does not mean a million-fold increase in decay rates. The argument that decay rates can be altered significantly will prove indefensible, and you are still left with the issue of correlations ... which you have not yet addressed.When we look at the dendrochronologies and also compare the values of the 14C/12C ratios for the rings at different ages we see that all four dendrochronologies have the same 14C/12C ratios for the same ages and that these values show the characteristic exponential curve of radioactive decay.You now have four dendrochronologies that agree with each other within 0.5% over 8,000 plus years AND you have them agree with each other on the 14C/12C ratios for all these ages AND you have the 14C/12C ratios correlate with the decay rate associated with 14C.You have not yet proposed a single mechanism to cause one of these correlations.Waving your hand and talking about hypothetical decay rate changes does not explain the correlations.Enjoy.

Too bad for you that popular opinion is irrelevant to truth.

quote:

---

The argument that decay rates can be altered significantly will prove indefensible, and you are still left with the issue of correlations ... which you have not yet addressed.

​

When we look at the dendrochronologies and also compare the values of the 14C/12C ratios for the rings at different ages we see that all four dendrochronologies have the same 14C/12C ratios for the same ages and that these values show the characteristic exponential curve of radioactive decay.

​

You now have four dendrochronologies that agree with each other within 0.5% over 8,000 plus years AND you have them agree with each other on the 14C/12C ratios for all these ages AND you have the 14C/12C ratios correlate with the decay rate associated with 14C.

​

You have not yet proposed a single mechanism to cause one of these correlations.

​

Waving your hand and talking about hypothetical decay rate changes does not explain the correlations.

---

(1) I just explained in Message 124 how all your points fall into 3 categories, Dendrochronology, Radiometric Dating, and Depositional Rates, and are explainable through a Pre-Flood Canopy and Global Flood.
(2) Concerning the Dendrochronologies, the oldest tree we have dates under 5,000 years. And that's assuming rings were dated correctly at a year apiece. The cross-dating becomes speculative as it depends on their correct analysis of a pattern existing. According to your Message 2:

quote:

---

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

---

Obviously if they just pick and choose 2 similar rings for two 4,000 year old trees they can claim trees of similar ages show a 7,000 or 8,000 year history, even if the trees grew at approximately the same time. Their analysis needs to be double-checked to show the pattern was indeed reliable.

Hi again Jzyehoshua, It assumes that the earths tilt and orbit produce seasons, just as they do today. Of course if you have a mechanism to alter the tilt and orbit without it showing up in the tree ring chronologies, then please provide your hypothesis and the evidence for it ... otherwise you are just throwing mud, not debating the scientific validity of the correlations. Curiously being more tropical does not mean that the tilt and orbit were different and that there were not annual season patterns.Amusingly the dendrochronologies provide evidence of this difference in climate because the individual rings do not always grow at the same rate, but one dependent on the climate.Fascinatingly this does not affect the annual growth pattern due to seasons -- even when there is climate change. You have not shown it to be a fallacy, dangerous or otherwise. Just assertion is insufficient -- you need evidence that it is false.Dangerous to you maybe. Not dangerous to science however, as science is based on evidence, and you have provided no evidence that the annual season pattern has changed.You have not explained the correlations between four independent dendrochronologies in different global locations, in different ecologies and in different species of trees ... a correlation within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.Enjoy.

You still haven't addressed my Message 124 which did provide the mechanism you and others wanted. I still see no reply to my explanation of why correlations would exist. I just explained that in my previous post.

No Jzyehoshua, you did not explain the correlation.With respect to dendrochronologies, you merely said that it would be affected by a Pre-Flood Canopy, but you did not explain how. In fact, I cannot see how it would be explained away. In order to defeat the one year equals one ring observation, you need to explain how multiple rings get put down in a year. If you think a flood canopy will do this, you need to explain how.You claim the C-14 levels were affected, but even a 5000 year correlation with dendrochronology is evidence that you are wrong and that a flood never occurred during that period.In short, you at least owe us a mechanism. That would be one step above the handwaving you are doing now. Let's be for real. No matter what review had been done in the past, you would ask for more double-checking. You had no idea who checked what when you posted this.

I suppose I should be more specific than I was, sorry about that. In a more tropical environment, I question whether the summer/winter cycles would exist the same way, and thus whether multiple rings could be put down in a single year. Increased oxygen levels and major atmospheric discrepancies - both of which are becoming increasingly evidenced for ancient earth - could also alter ring growth.I'm still unsure whether I agree with complete accuracy on Ussher's part, or an age to life on earth approaching 10,000 years rather than 6,000, but 5,000 year trees seem compatible with a Biblical age to life on earth. If a Flood occurred 5,000 years ago that would be about right for the Biblical genealogies, correct? Really, I would like to check it myself. I tend to distrust political parties and alleged authorities, preferring to check for myself. I check voting records rather than believe what politicians say. I check senate transcripts. I read the U.S. Budget for myself (color-coded here). I research U.S. history for myself which is why I'm so familiar with the founding fathers.My point is, ideally I'd just like to see the evidence for myself to assure myself that the trees were accurately matched. So that's where things really stand. Barring that I'd like to see some good evidence they were matched correctly. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.