|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
Doesn't iridium most often come from meteors? That's why they trace the KT boundary to this big meteor they claim hit the Earth in that supposed time period. I figure what happened is that the meteor hit during the Flood and the timing was such that the iridium was carried on that particular layer which was dispersed throughout the world as all the sedimentary layers were being laid down during that event. Same basic idea, totally different timing and transport system. Technically, the object that hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was an asteroid (about 10 km in diameter), not a meteor. A meteoroid is an interplanetary body, smaller than an asteroid, in orbit around the Sun. A meteor or fireball is the luminous phenomenon that we see when a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere and burns up. A meteorite is a mass of stone or iron (derived from a meteoroid) that falls to Earth after the appearance of a fireball.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Actually, no possibility you are correct whatsoever as far as the bible goes.
I shall defer to you and the Bible as experts in erosion.
When the mountains get flattened it is sudden, and simultaneous to all the towers on earth falling!
I can't wait!
It also happens when all islands flee away and move out of their place (the continents rejoining swiftly?)..and Jesus returning to earth. Forget your 'erosion' nonsense.
Okay does this happen in a past state, the current state or a state yet to be? And how do you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Imaginary time, based solely upon assuming the current nature existed doesn't count.
Sure. Let's base it on a "different nature" that we don't know anything about and has no evidence to support it. There. That's a lot better. Now it can be based on whatever you want time to be based on, and you can change it whenever you want. The best of all worlds, ... er ... natures... I dare say that this strikes most people as kind of funny, or maybe pathetic. You really have nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yeah, a "different nature" won't help me in trying to predict what we will find underground when we get there.
Science works. There's no "different nature" of formation of rocks. Just the normal natural laws even though those rocks formed a long, long time ago... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Stop claiming that rings are ...anything at all in the pines. ... Why? What have you presented, other than your pathetic delusional assertions about a different nature (which are not scientific evidence of anything other than that you are deluded)? Nothing. Curiously that doesn't invalidate the tree rings in the pines, or the ones in the oaks ... the other two dendrochronologies that confirm the validity of the pine rings.
The ONLY rings that matter are the ones beyond 4500 level that you have provided no pics of, no details about and seem to like to avoid. You asked for photos of the tree rings and I showed you one. Now you complain that it doesn't show the ring 4500 years old. And yet I have shown you where that can be found, where it exists in one of many trees, where anyone can count the rings and see how many there are, and where they are actual objective empirical evidence of age beyond 4500 years into the past. You keep raising this as if it were some critical point that challenges the whole thread. It doesn't, it doesn't challenge anything except your ability to understand what real evidence is. When there is objective empirical evidence we find many sources to show it's validity, many documents by people using these factual artifacts. So I did a little more googling (another 5 minutes of my time doing what you would not bother to do), and I found something that I can add another reference to my revised version of this thread that will emphasize how good the evidence of old age is:
quote: So here we have another picture, this time of one of the several sections of Prometheus that have been used to verify the age of this tree.
... The ONLY rings that matter are the ones beyond 4500 level that you have provided no pics of, no details about and seem to like to avoid. Here's another:
quote: Done and double done. Because of these articles I can now use 4,862 years for the age of Prometheus instead of the original 4,844 years. Thanks for improving the details and the accuracy of my posting on the Bristlecone pines in general and Prometheus in particular. This is the inevitable result of nit-picking comments on objective empirical evidence, as we have seen: answering you has improved the documentation here, and on the Egyptian chronology. Keep going, and you will just dig yourself deeper into a hole you can't explain your way out of.
Message 1056: Not all mountains pushed up in the continental moves were huge. Irrelevant. Please keep to the facts and not posting your fantasies ... See Message 1044 for more details on this silly fantasy purported flood argument ... which just gets more laughable with later posts ...
Message 1052 ... as far as the bible goes. When the mountains get flattened it is sudden, and simultaneous to all the towers on earth falling! It also happens when all islands flee away and move out of their place (the continents rejoining swiftly?)..and Jesus returning to earth. ... I suppose the islands will suddenly evolve legs ... LOL. It seems that creationists are incapable of supporting arguments with facts, so they try to chip away at the scientific evidence and post imaginary fantasy drivel instead. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Best I can do is say I've argued the case for the absurdity of the OE interpretation of the strata many times and am not up to it again. It's my own observation so although i wish it were shared by others and could be the basis for peer reviewed work it can't be. As long as so many creationists disagree with each other about these things that isn't going to happen. Member Creation thinks all the strata couldn't have been laid down n a year. I'm not going to argue that whole thing again with him.
The rest of your post demonstrates that what you have and all you have, and I've conceded it at least until further notice, is dating calculations. Timing is of course important, but if the basic absurdity of the standard interpretation and the obvious sense of the Floodist interpretation can be shown then the timing is just going to have to be rethought. I can hope but I'm tired and above all I hope Jesus comes back soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1943 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Right, so the same things holds true in the mind of science...that the iridium source was space. As I said, they tell us it is found the inner earth or space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1943 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
In the bible the reasons towers and mountains fall one day is not related to erosion In your religion it may be...inside your head.
About your question as to what nature will exist when this happens in the future...I suspect that the former nature will again exist here then! The clues are the rapid moving of islands (probably the plates and continents also), the leveling of all mountains on the planet suddenly, the changed behavior in animals/instincts (the animals will attack people then, the wicked folks, and the birds will change their old migration patterns and converge on the middle east for a feast). Soon after this we also see wolves and lions and other carnivores staring to eat a new diet, so that means the rapid evolving is probably back again...etc etc! Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1943 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Actually, it may! I suspect the inner earth is precious stones and spiritual materials also! I predict that the core is not hot! Etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Because admitting the failures of your arguments would be too much to expect from you.
quote: Things you’ve made up don’t count as observations, you know.
quote: We also have the order of the fossil record, erosion between layers - sometimes massive, huge amounts of ancient lava extruded onto dry land, a long history of tectonic disturbances... the evidence goes on and on. Too bad you can’t admit to any of it.
quote: And how on earth are you going to manage that ? Claiming that the strata and fossils support the Flood because a ridiculously superficial interpretation of the evidence lets you jump to that conclusion - and attacking anyone who dares look deeper and see the falsehood of your claims hardly does that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1943 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
quote:Why? Because in claiming things about rings pre 4500 level, you are in unknown territory as far as what nature existed. quote:No one wants/needs to invalidate the rings beyond 4500 deep. What you do need to do is show these rings and any details you claim about them, and demonstrate that they were a product of this current nature! Simply picking up other dead tress with rings in the same area does not tell us what nature they grew in! Yet you incessantly offer this as some sort of 'collaboration'. quote:Not bad actually. Better than I was able to come up with as far as pics. Too bad you can't focus on the rings that are older then 4500 though, which relegates the pics to meaninglessness. Then, if you could do that, let's see the precise carbon 14 data on THOSE rings that you try to sluff off on us also!
quote:You have not really done that. Is the data on C14 there and specific to the pre 4500 level rings? Where is the close up of the rings that matter, the ones older than 4500? You really thought posting some pic of a the tree that had no specific relation to the old rings helps you?! It proves you really don't know what you are talking about and plead faith alone! quote:Ha. All based on the same ONE belief that you can't support. /quote On this date in 1964 the oldest known unitary organism, Prometheus, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree growing near the tree line on Wheeler Peak in eastern Nevada was cut down by a graduate student and United States Forest Service personnel for research purposes. The tree was at least 4862 years old and possibly more than 5000 years. The people involved supposedly did not know of its world-record age before the cutting. ... The name of the tree refers to the mythological figure Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans. The designation WPN-114 was given by the original researcher, Donald Rusk Currey, and refers to the 114th tree sampled by him for his research in Nevada’s White Pine County.[/quote] ?? Named after some god that gave stuff to humans!? Ha. Well, too bad us poor humans can't see the rings you talk about eh? Are they missing or there? What do they look like? What is the exact C14 pattern in THEM? Etc.
quote:They don't agree on age?? quote:Oh, brother, here we go again with the missing rings thnig!!!!! /quoteAdjusting Graybill’s figure of 4862 by adding in the estimated number of years required to reach this height, plus a correction for the estimated number of missing rings (which are not uncommon in trees growing at the tree line),[/quote] Ha ha ha ha ha. TOTAL same state past based corrections!!!! quote: They disagree on age, then correct it using a few same state past beliefs about what a tree should do....then talk of missing rings, then come up with some new date...and all the while we see NO rings past 4500 on display in the article or your posts!
quote: All assuming the nearby dead trees with the same ring patterns ALSO grew slow in this nature!!!! Ridiculous religion. We wait. I laugh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why? Because in claiming things about rings pre 4500 level, you are in unknown territory as far as what nature existed. There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 4,500 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch. The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 4500 years ago. There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 8,000 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch. The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 8,000 years ago. The absolute tree ring age correlates with the absolute part of the Egyptian chronology for 17 artifacts, with the earliest being 2827 BCE to 2651 BCE, and Shaw's Chronology gives 2660 BCE. Note that +/-88 years in over 4,700 years of tree ring chronology is an error of +/-1.9%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age, but it is mostly due to the wiggle of the 14C levels that match these sample data points to several different times. There is also no mention of a different nature in either Egyptian or Chinese chronicles. The evidence shows that there was no measurable difference in nature beyond 4500 years ago and thus any argument based on this fantasy is worse than useless. The scientific consensus from many different fields is that there is little measurable difference between any time in the past and the present, and that - until there is objective empirical evidence otherwise - there is no need to consider any hypothetical change for the purpose of doing scientific research. You have no objective empirical evidence of any change in nature.
No one wants/needs to invalidate the rings beyond 4500 deep. What you do need to do is show these rings and any details you claim about them, and demonstrate that they were a product of this current nature! Simply picking up other dead tress with rings in the same area does not tell us what nature they grew in! Yet you incessantly offer this as some sort of 'collaboration'. Nope. The onus is on you to show objective empirical evidence of a different nature and when it happened, because the evidence in this thread, especially the correlations, validates the tree ring data and the ages they record, while you are a like a lone voice gibbering in the dark.
Not bad actually. Better than I was able to come up with as far as pics. Too bad you can't focus on the rings that are older then 4500 though, which relegates the pics to meaninglessness. Then, if you could do that, let's see the precise carbon 14 data on THOSE rings that you try to sluff off on us also! Moving the goal posts again. Typical creationist failed god-of-the-gaps argument. Too bad that you can't focus on the evidence, while the rest of the world has no problem with it, and the evidence has been validated by several different scientific groups in peer reviewed articles.
You have not really done that. Is the data on C14 there and specific to the pre 4500 level rings? Where is the close up of the rings that matter, the ones older than 4500? You really thought posting some pic of a the tree that had no specific relation to the old rings helps you?! It proves you really don't know what you are talking about and plead faith alone! Congratulations, your silly nit-picking has now reached the level of sublime ridiculousness ... you want to see C14. The data is documented in peer reviewed scientific articles, and if you want the information then contact the authors. Anyone who doesn't believe the information is there is a fool, idiot or troll.
They don't agree on age?? A scientific review changed the age by 18 years or 0.4%. 4,862 is now the accepted age because the evidence was reviewed twice. This is how science operates, not by wishful delusional thinking, but by review of the evidence.
Oh, brother, here we go again with the missing rings thnig!!!!! Only you. Other people can follow what is actually written and understand what it means.
quote:Ha ha ha ha ha. TOTAL same state past based corrections!!!! Except that I only use the absolute known age from the rings that are there. The tree is obviously older because the early growth rings have been eroded away (look at the picture of the section and you will see there is no center). Nobody else seems to have trouble understanding this simple fact.
They disagree on age, then correct it using a few same state past beliefs about what a tree should do....then talk of missing rings, then come up with some new date...and all the while we see NO rings past 4500 on display in the article or your posts! Nope. Not for the actual counted rings that are actual factual objective empirical evidence that is documented in several places and where the actual sections exist to verify those counts by anyone that wants to make a legitimate inquiry.
We wait. I laugh. Like a fool that gibbers in the darkness of his delusions. The rest of the world ignores this foolish ranting, because the evidence shows (a) it is obviously, blatantly wrong (or misunderstanding), and (b) what he rants about is totally irrelevant and completely fails to address (1) the objective empirical evidence of actual factual age and (2) the correlations. Or like a troll that thinks he can disrupt a thread, and ends up providing evidence of how vacuous creationist arguments are ... like being in an axe fight without an axe. Or like the Black Knight (Monty Python, Holy Grail}
Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Notice no DNA from dinos or the time before the flood? ... False.
quote: Once again you are shooting blanks on a science thread, making unfounded assertions without any basis on objective empirical evidence. The correlations confirm the age chronology with no evidence of any different nature at some arbitrary chosen but actually unknown time. This thread is about correlations, not fantasy. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Nice link.
I thought it was interesting that the upper limit for DNA preservation is as much at 1.5ma. More importantly, that limit was for 'contemporary sequencing technology'. Is this telling us that fragmentary DNA might linger for a longer period of time? Or that technology may push the limit back even further?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1943 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
From YOUR link
" The decay kinetics have been measured by accelerated aging experiments further displaying the strong influence of storage temperature and humidity on DNA decay.[28] Nuclear DNA degrades at least twice as fast as mtDNA. As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, may have stemmed from contamination of the sample."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024