|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi JonF
OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. ... I agree, especially when you consider the correlations, that is a pretty tough argument to make.
... I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue. Which is also why I want to shift the scam part of the argument to the proper scam thread where people have already (I believe) addressed it. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
he simple explanation is that none of the methods mentioned in the emails he posted are dating methods. What about the J's comments related to dendrochronology? I think those are comments are related to dating.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Challenge the dating here yes, pursue the scam aspect no - that is better under the other existing scam thread. J suggests that the tree ring data appears to correlate with other aging data because the tree ring data is phony. If that proposition is off topic here, then the scope of the discussion on age correlations is extremely narrow. I don't believe J can make his case, but I think compartmentalizing objections so that only certain types of arguments can be made in this thread is the wrong way to go about it. But it occurs to me that I am way too meta to be on topic, so I'll knock it off.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
J suggests that the tree ring data appears to correlate with other aging data because the tree ring data is phony. If that proposition is off topic here, then the scope of the discussion on age correlations is extremely narrow. The problem he has, is that there are three independent tree ring chronologies that would all have to be jiggered the exact same way, along with the correlations in them for absolute values of 13C/12C and 14C/12C, AND the correlation of peaks in the 14C/12C data that match the solar cycles that affect 14C production. That is a very hard nut to crack, imho, with just some 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of emails -- he's going to need more than that, he's going to need empirical data to show it is wrong. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What about the J's comments related to dendrochronology? I think those are comments are related to dating. Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology. That may indeed be all that can be shown from the emails, but here is what J says about them:
Jazzy Jeff writes: Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
[qs]
Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology. That may indeed be all that can be shown from the emails, but here is what J says about them:
quote:. I've already demonstrated that he's not a reliable source on this subject; he thinks that measuring decay of 18O (a stable isotope) is a dating method, and a few other show-stopper errors that slip my mind at the moment. If he shows some interest in learning, I'll be glad to explain in more detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
To me, one of the things that helps to establish the validity of RC dating is the way the Lake Suigetsu dates vary from a straight line correlation with the varve count by a steady few percent. Either a real effect is being reported, or the researchers agreed to put in the variation to make it look as though they were measuring something. Also there are reported plateaus in RC dates at around 450-750 BC, and 8000-9000 BC. Why report this if you were fudging the results? Similarly, the study in the Cariaco Basin showed a rapid rise in C14 age from 34,000-41,000 BP with a 2000 increase in varves. Seems like real results are being reported, regardless of the many correlations with other methods
,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
revelation Junior Member (Idle past 4222 days) Posts: 1 From: UK Joined: |
The information presented here is amazing. The Bible account in Genesis allows for a very old earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the Bible accounts in Genesis are also factually wrong.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi revelation, and welcome to the fray.
The information presented here is amazing. Thank you.
The Bible account in Genesis allows for a very old earth. It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly. This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3847 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly. This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this idea of dating things is outside the Site's intended consideration of Evolution Vs Creationism, and only the techniques of Modern day dating are under discussion? Is this a part of the site where the science people get their science straight among themselves, and some other location exists for the Creationism people? It occurs to me that though Genesis is open to private interpretations, it does establish some links between the geological and biological events it enumerates and the time line of seven "days" which could be understood as the same geological rock layers we use radioactive dating to identify in regard to age. My point being that things like first life appearing in a Spontaneous Generation during the third "day" coorelated one-to-one with science Abiogenesis in the Archeozoic "evening"/Proterozoic "morning" Eras. Now disregard this idea if this thread is purely a scientific review for us science people so we are all on the same page about our particular disciplines. [/B] (I agree, it is good that such lesson be examined by the science side of these discussions so the real facts are clear to all science minded people posting here.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi kofh2u
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this idea of dating things is outside the Site's intended consideration of Evolution Vs Creationism, and only the techniques of Modern day dating are under discussion This is not a thread to discuss interpretations of the biblical accounts, although that could be an interesting thread on it's own. This thread is to discuss the correlations in results from all the systems/methodologies covered in the OP.
Is this a part of the site where the science people get their science straight among themselves, and some other location exists for the Creationism people? This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist.
It occurs to me that though Genesis is open to private interpretations, it does establish some links between the geological and biological events it enumerates and the time line of seven "days" which could be understood as the same geological rock layers we use radioactive dating to identify in regard to age. My point being that things like first life appearing in a Spontaneous Generation during the third "day" coorelated one-to-one with science Abiogenesis in the Archeozoic "evening"/Proterozoic "morning" Eras. ... As noted above, this could make an interesting topic on it's own. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3847 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist.
So this is the place where one MUST either say the Bible contradicts science and there science is wrong, or conversely, that the Bible says is wrong because science contradicts people who SAY what the Bible says, not what it DOES say. The fact that it is way long later, in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hoiur day is even created makes no difference in this ridiculous limitation to people whose reading comprehension is so poor and science people who want to pull their pants down here without my too cents? How convenient to lies on both sides.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024