Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 166 of 1498 (663904)
05-27-2012 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 11:32 PM


evading the correlations again. epic fail.
Hi Jzyehoshua, still doing the creationist shuck and jive eh?
I ran a Google News search to see what major news sources had to say on the subject (search here - Click News on left sidebar instead of 'Everything') and came across something VERY interesting.
Turns out Bristlecones have been growing very rapidly in California and Nevada for the past 50 years ...
Amusingly this shows very clearly how tree ring data can provide climate information.
But the questions for you are
  1. does this affect the tree ring counts for the trees in question?
  2. If yes how is this affected?
  3. does this affect the correlations with the other dendrochronologies?
  4. If no why not?
Do you even begin to understand that this is essentially irrelevant because it does not affect the dendrochronology nor the correlations with the other dendrochronologies?
Do you understand that you are demonstrating an apparent inability to learn the basics of dendrochronology when you post things like this?
You have now posted over 25 posts on this thread and not one of them addresses the correlations.
That is epic fail.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 11:32 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 1498 (663905)
05-27-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 6:17 PM


stage one recognition
Hi foreveryoung, welcome to the thread.
All this means is that dendrochronologies are accurate for dating the last 8,000 years. ...
Thank you for saying that. This is the initial stages of this thread information, but a good starting point.
It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous.
... This is a far cry from proving the earth is 4.56 billion years old.
Curiously, that is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to show the evidence that invalidates the concept of a young earth.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 6:17 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 6:51 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 PM RAZD has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 168 of 1498 (663907)
05-27-2012 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
05-27-2012 6:34 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Curiously, that is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to show the evidence that invalidates the concept of a young earth.
That all depends on what you mean by a young earth. If you mean 6000 years, then , yes, by all means, it does disprove that. I am not a 6000 year old earth YEC however. I am a young earther in the sense that I see no reason why the earth is older than 1 million years old. If you do not hold to the Ushher interpretation of biblical genealogies, 1 million years is not a contradiction to the genesis creation text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 6:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 7:18 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2012 7:39 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 1498 (663908)
05-27-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 6:51 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Thanks foreveryoung,
... . I am not a 6000 year old earth YEC however. I am a young earther in the sense that I see no reason why the earth is older than 1 million years old. ...
I would not characterize that as young earth so much as middle-age earth (as opposed to old age earthers which accept 4.55 billion years).
We can get to this later.
If you do not hold to the Ushher interpretation of biblical genealogies, 1 million years is not a contradiction to the genesis creation text.
There may be some that would be interested in a new thread on this.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 6:51 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 170 of 1498 (663909)
05-27-2012 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
05-27-2012 11:18 AM


Re: Second analysis
Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.
steve carlip writes:
The supernova SN1987A was observed in 1987, when we saw a star ``explode'' about 170,000 light years from Earth. This distance is unambiguous---it can be obtained by trigonometry, with no assumptions except that Euclidean geometry is nearly right in and near our galaxy.
After the initial supernova, much of the energy produced by SN1987A came from the radioactive decays of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57. These decays can be identified because they emit gamma rays of very precise frequencies, which are easily detectable. We've looked at the decay rates, and they're exactly the same as the ones we observe in the laboratory. So there's been no change in at least the 170,000 years it took for the light to reach us.
Note that you don't have to assume a constant speed of light here---the supernova gives an independent check. That's because many of the features of a supernova, from the amount of energy and the number of neutrinos emitted to the spectral lines of the elements in the ``afterglow,'' depend sensitively on the speed of light. If, for example, the speed of light had been different when the supernova occurred, we wouldn't have seen the cobalt decays at all, since the frequency of the gamma rays emitted in the decay depends on the speed of light.
I use this example because it's relatively simple to understand. But there have been *lots* of other searches for changes in physical constants, using methods ranging from astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, to searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, to studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, to (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.
The result is a net of observations that fit together quite rigidly ---you can't tweak one without contradicting many others. For instance, if you suppose the speed of light varies, that affects spectral lines in distant stars. It affects different lines in different ways, and so would be easy to see. (That's what Webb et al. were looking for.) You can try to compensate by allowing the charge of the electron to vary in synch with the speed of light. But that requires that the charge of the proton must vary as well, since otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be neutral (which would have dramatic and easily observable effects). But if the charge of the proton varies, the rates of nuclear reactions will change, affecting the production of energy by stars in a way we don't see. You might then propose that the strength of the nuclear interaction could change exactly in synch with the speed of light and the charge of the electron and proton. But nuclear interactions affect neutrons as well, and again you'd end up with drastic changes in the behavior of stars that we would see (and don't). People have gone through this kind of argument carefully and quantitatively. It just doesn't work.
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change. I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 11:18 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 7:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 8:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 179 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:04 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 171 of 1498 (663910)
05-27-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 6:51 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Certainly, the official creationist line is an age for the earth that is no greater than 10,000 years, even though the Ussher reckoning would require it to be no older than 6,000 years. I've always assumed, since "creation science" had to play the game of "Hide the Bible" in order to deceive the court system, that they just rounded up in order to hide their source.
And, certainly, while most creationists would be expected to just blindly follow the official creationist line that they've been fed, there should be and are variant views on that particular question. And, certainly, when those variant views present themselves, we quite naturally want to ask how those variant views had been arrived at.
So then, please, on what do you base your one-million-year maximum age? Is it a variation of the two-hundred-year-old Gap Theory? And if, in differing from the clear genealogies used by Ussher, one million years is not out of line, then what about two million years? Or a hundred million years? Or a billion years? Or about 4.5 billion years? What is it that draws the line in the sand at one million years?
About 20 years ago on a Yahoo Groups forum, a creationist gave me two aha! epiphanies. The first was when he used that hoary old PRATT about the concentration of sodium in the oceans (the old sea salt concentrations claim, which actually deals with residence times for various elements and compounds; aluminum's is 100 years, but instead of trying to claim that the seas could be no older than 100 years, Henry Morris just wrote something like "Huh? I wonder what that would mean."). Now, this creationist had already demonstrated before that he toed the party line of no older than 10,000 years, but here he was arguing for millions of years instead. When I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself, he said that he did not care whether it was 10,000 years or a hundred million years, "just so long as it's not BILLIONS OF YEARS as science says it is". That is when I had one of the epiphanies he gave me: creationists don't care what any of their claims really mean, just so long as they can disprove or cast doubt on what science says; they're not trying to prove or promote creationism, but rather they're just attacking science.
So then, do you actually have a reason for setting the limit at one million years? Or are you just allowing for more age, just so long as it's less than what science says?
BTW, FWIW, I'm sure that we've all played that rainy-day game of working through the genealogies in Genesis; I certainly did. But then we bump right up against the Flood and can't go any further (much like blacks in the US trying to trace their families back eventually hit the Wall of Slavery beyond which regular genealogy records were normally not kept). But I read one creationist's newsletter where he used other verses, including the reigns of the kings, to eventually tie the Bible's chronologies to an actual historic event and thus came up with a biblical date for Creation, which is only about 424 years older than the Jewish calendar says.
I converted it into a web page and had posted it on my previous website, but haven't prepared it for my current site. I just now uploaded it, though, but all the links in it are broken or lead to elsewhere. No other web page anywhere links to it. Just thought it might be an interesting read for you and for others.
ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?
Share and enjoy!
Edited by dwise1, : had forgotten to provide the link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 6:51 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 8:00 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 1498 (663912)
05-27-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
05-27-2012 6:34 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Hi RAZD.
RAZD writes:
It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous.
RAZD this thread is a little over my head but I'll try to try and grasp it the best I can hopefully. What do you mean here? If there was a world wide flood are you saying it would wipe out all the correlations and start fresh? Let's say there was a flood anywhere at any point in time no matter how small, would we be able to correlate any thing in that area? By continuous you mean uninterrupted? How can you tell? I think you're saying tree rings (for example) were uninterrupted and continuous? What if those trees just survived the flood? How can you tell they didn't?
I realize these may be silly questions to ask but I'm just trying to understand the thread. These are in no way me attempting any gotcha questions. They probably make no sense but like I said I'm just trying to understand what you are meaning with the correlations and how you get them. Thanks RAZD.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 6:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 8:12 PM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 176 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:13 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 173 of 1498 (663914)
05-27-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Second analysis
Hi foreveryoung,
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. ...
And this should be (and has been) discussed on your thread.
it is off-topic here where the issue is correlations between dating methods, including the correlations between radioactive dating methods and non-radioactive dating methods that show the accuracy of the radioactive dating methods.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 174 of 1498 (663915)
05-27-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by dwise1
05-27-2012 7:39 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Hi dwise1
So then, please, on what do you base your one-million-year maximum age?
A great topic for a new thread.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2012 7:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 175 of 1498 (663916)
05-27-2012 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
05-27-2012 7:45 PM


Re: stage one recognition
Hi Chuck77, hope you are well.
It also means there was no WWFlood during that time, because the chronologies are continuous.
RAZD this thread is a little over my head but I'll try to try and grasp it the best I can hopefully. What do you mean here?
The dendrochronologies are built up from living trees and from dead trees and fallen trees and even on some bits and pieces of trees (anything large enough to have enough rings to be able to match sufficiently with climate patterns of other pieces).
(1) If there had been a world wide flood for the duration purported to occur and under the conditions purported to apply, there would have been a point at which there were no living trees, and there would be no evidence bridging any gap between pre-flood and post-flood growth -- without invoking some miracle anyway.
(2) If there had been a world wide flood then any loose bits of wood would have floated away.
Logically then, a complete dendrochronology should only be able to be compiled in a post-flood time.
This point is also recognized by AIG:
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis
quote:
... Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long. The presence of fossiliferous sediment under the BCPs rules out any of them being pre-Flood. ...
Similar considerations would apply to the other three dendrochronologies, especially as they do not have the long lives of the Bristlecone Pines, yet they all agree with a 99.5% accuracy.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 PM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Chuck77, posted 05-28-2012 5:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 176 of 1498 (663917)
05-27-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
05-27-2012 7:45 PM


Re: stage one recognition
RAZD this thread is a little over my head but I'll try to try and grasp it the best I can hopefully. What do you mean here? If there was a world wide flood are you saying it would wipe out all the correlations and start fresh? Let's say there was a flood anywhere at any point in time no matter how small, would we be able to correlate any thing in that area? By continuous you mean uninterrupted? How can you tell? I think you're saying tree rings (for example) were uninterrupted and continuous? What if those trees just survived the flood? How can you tell they didn't?
A worldwide flood that destroyed all life on the planet would rip the bristlecone pines out by their roots. Those trees would rot after floating in the water for almost a year. It would be impossible for one to stay intact after a year in the water and reattach itself to new soil and start growing again. I don't know of any plant that could stay drenched in the water for a year's time and not disintegrate into mush. There is an uninterrupted period of at least 8000 years of bristlecone pine evidence. If a worldwide flood had occurred in the last 8000 years, the bristlecone pine dendrochronology would only go back in time to the end of the flood. This means that if there was a worldwide flood, it had to have occurred prior to 8000 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Pollux, posted 05-29-2012 7:07 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 1498 (663927)
05-27-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Second analysis
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are?
But do we have to be able to answer these downright metaphysical questions to think about what things would be like if various weights and times and speeds and so forth were different?
Without "really understanding what mass is", you can say what would happen if you weighed 500lb. Without "understanding what time and space is" you can say how long it would take you to drive to Los Angeles if Los Angeles was only ten miles away from you. You don't need to know if space is "merely a mathematical construct" to figure this out. Why would you?
And, after all, physicists have done quite well at doing physics without doing any metaphysics. You ask them to put a man on the moon, they don't sit around scratching their heads and saying .... well, we can't do that, we haven't figured out what space really is. So why should this question be any different, except that creationists don't like the answer? Is this not just a bit of special pleading?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 178 of 1498 (663928)
05-27-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Second analysis
Off topic. Please repost this to my physical laws thread so that I can respond there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 179 of 1498 (663946)
05-27-2012 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Second analysis
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work.
And provides references to those analyses. Have you read those references?
Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are?
Yes to all.
If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change.
Show us the math.
I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.
What are the exact failures you found in his refernces?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2012 10:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 1498 (663949)
05-27-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by JonF
05-27-2012 10:04 PM


redirect
Hi JonF
foreveryoung moved his post to Message 127 of Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?. Please reply there
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:04 PM JonF 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