|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Easy. When you assume slow deposition or growth for several items, naturally you get old ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I heard about 4500 but there is room for interpretive difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
creation writes: I heard about 4500 but there is room for interpretive difference. So all we have to do is demonstrate how the world is older than 6,000 years and/or that there are organisms and civilisations older than the flood. This is a science thread that deals with earth's age and how different and independent methods demonstrate beyond all doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 yeras. It just deals with simple things that we can physically count. There are many other methods that also prove the same thing - from physics, astronomy, archaeology etc - but these are the really easy ones to understand. Because these things are not related to each other an error in one can't create an error in another. Yet they all confirm each other. This is what RAZD says at the begnning of the thread. It's your job now to explain why each of these methods are not only wrong but how they can all be wrong but still agree with each other. This is called consilience, where different and independent methods all confirm a common result. It's a very, very high standard of science. It requires more than your usual two line dismissive response; it's a serious piece of scientific work. (His original post contains links to each claim which you will need to read, it's all at post 1.)
quote: Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
We can see lake varves forming. We can see ice layers forming. We can count them as they form. There is no assumption about the deposition rate. Easy. When you assume slow deposition or growth for several items, naturally you get old ages. And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers? You should think before you try to give "easy" answers. Scientists have put in thousands of hours studying these things. A schoolboy is not going to refute them with "easy" answers.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers?
Not to mention U-Th disequilibrium dating of speleothems. Obviously far beyond his comprehension.
Extremely Large Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentration During the Last Glacial Period. It's part of the latest INTCAL calibration curve.
Uranium—thorium dating Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Yes, as we can watch trees grow. Too bad for you that has absolutely zero to do with how layers were deposited or trees grew in the former nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Don't flatter yourself. If you want to introduce a claim that present decay and rates etc existed in the past, then get to er. Did you think you could get by with simply assuming they did?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Name ANY of those methods that is not based on belief that nature was the same in the past. Then we can talk. You can't. They all are. This means you have religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You cannot show any civilization older. The ONLY way you do that is with religious belief based same state past assuming decay dating. Gong.
Or would you like to resort to the king lists for dating!!!? Ha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
creation writes: Name ANY of those methods that is not based on belief that nature was the same in the past. Then we can talk. You can't. They all are. We know that a year has lasted about 365 days since man started keeping records. That's several thousand years. So for some unexplained and unevidenced reason you think that time changed somewhere around 3,000 years ago? That would mean that day length in the remaining 3,000 years would need to last millions of years. The consequences of that on biology are unimaginable. But to just name a couple, there would be huge and detectable changes to tree rings and ice layers. In fact there would be only one ring and one ice layer before the change and they would be enormous and unmissable. But they don't exist. And in any case radiometric dating methods are unaffected by day length or time changes. It decays at a set rate regardless.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Man has not kept records very long. In fact, there seems to be no reason to assume that man even had any need to write at all in that pre flood/nature change world. I suspect that the need to communicate via written form arose after the time of the tower of Babel.
Babel happens to be the likely time of the nature change. The nature change would have happened in the days of Peleg, and, if I recall, I think Peleg was about 5 years old at the time of Babel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
creation writes: Man has not kept records very long. In fact, there seems to be no reason to assume that man even had any need to write at all in that pre flood/nature change world. I suspect that the need to communicate via written form arose after the time of the tower of Babel. So let me get this straight, when 4,500 years ago, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, how long where those datys and nights?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Roughly the same as now. However apparently a year was 360 days so I guess there was some little difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
There is no evidence of a "former nature". You can't just make things up to suit your beliefs. Yes, as we can watch trees grow. Too bad for you that has absolutely zero to do with how layers were deposited or trees grew in the former nature.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
However apparently a year was 360 days so I guess there was some little difference. What is your source for that utterly false and ridiculous supposition? Seriously, which creationist was it who made that up and what did he claim as his source? (Typically, creationists will claim a scientific source as their own source, when actually they just took the claim directly from another creationist, claimed scientific source and all, while deliberately lying about what their source was.) The year has never ever been 360 days long, but it will be some time in the future. The earth's rotation is slowing down on the whole, currently at an average rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century. Hence the earth had a more rapid rotation in the past and will have a slower rotation in the future. A more rapid rotation would mean more days in a year, not fewer as you just claimed; eg, around 400 million years ago there would have been about 400 days in each year as verified by the varves in Devonian fossil coral reefs. So what is your source for that ridiculous false claim and why did you allow yourself to be deceived by it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024