Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 297 (94542)
03-24-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:02 AM


Re: why not OEC
Ok.

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:02 AM RAZD has not replied

joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 297 (94543)
03-24-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:05 AM


Re: why not OEC
Addition is a necessity.

The earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 7:04 PM joshua221 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 297 (94565)
03-24-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by joshua221
03-24-2004 6:03 PM


Re: why not OEC or EIEIO
what do you get when you add 4 apples, {x}, 5 pears, {n} and a pomegranate? then throw in "a day is as a thousand years" (or whatever it is), mix with essence de rien, some merit for good measure, and a measure of incensed patriarchs?
curious.
ps - love the chicken dance (turn sound on)
{{fix link}}
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-25-2004]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by joshua221, posted 03-24-2004 6:03 PM joshua221 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 297 (98686)
04-08-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


information added in pink to original essay
I have edited the original essay to include a new paragraph under oak dendrochronology and to supply a secondary source for the Lake Suigetsu Varve work done by Dr. Kitagawa et al (the original seems to be offline, but I hope it will be restored).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 297 (98719)
04-08-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


changed Lake Suigetsu link
changed link to one provided by Bill Birkeland
thanks!

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has not replied

Brad
Member (Idle past 4788 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 21 of 297 (98923)
04-09-2004 1:54 PM


A literal interperetation of Geneis, you mean taking word for word that God made some magic trees in a garden somewhere and told us not to eat them, but we did anyway? So you're telling me that when we can't even believe accounts of things like the flood, and the garden of eden, we should believe stories and myths taking place before there were any people? And yes it is really hard to believe any of those accounts, I'm sure you've read some of the posts in the geology and flood forum.
I've been lurking here for a while, but that point caught my interest, I had to say something, so I did, I'm in my computer graphics class, and thought it an opportune time!
-Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2004 9:38 PM Brad has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 22 of 297 (98934)
04-09-2004 2:49 PM


Its quite interesting your tree rings supports that the fossil record is quite young, Humphreys did bring out an interesting problem with heliums in the granites, that shouldn't be there, Snelling brought out that argon 36 is being released to the atmosphere in oil off gases(the same as the atmosphere), and were to believe that there are not other like problems with all the dating methods, due to leaching, or simply due to proportional translocation of minerals in the rock sediments even before they erupted out of the earth, but did find it interesting that your tree rings supports the fossils are quite young, and brings to light questions on the viablility of toe, etc...
P.S. Perhaps we should simply replace toe with ID, what has toe to offer that ID has not, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-09-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 04-09-2004 6:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 04-09-2004 6:52 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2004 10:08 PM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 23 of 297 (98963)
04-09-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
04-09-2004 2:49 PM


Dating Problems
whatever writes:
Its quite interesting your tree rings supports that the fossil record is quite young,...
You might have misinterpreted something in Message 1, because this wouldn't be a valid conclusion from the information provided. Determining a minimum age does not bound the maximum age.
Humphreys did bring out an interesting problem with heliums in the granites, that shouldn't be there, Snelling brought out that argon 36 is being released to the atmosphere in oil off gases(the same as the atmosphere), and we're to believe that there are not other like problems with all the dating methods...
I hope no one here ever asked you to just "believe" there are no problems with dating methods. If memory serves me correctly, you've already participated in threads where the very real difficulties of radiometric dating were discussed, along with detailed explanations of isochron methods and the high degree of agreement among the different methods.
The strength of your position is measured not by how persistently you hold your point of view, but by how persuasive it is to others. Even if Humphreys' and Snellings criticisms were 100% dead-on accurate, they amount to only two tiny datapoints against a mountain of evidence for an ancient earth. So at best they qualify as scientific mysteries, and at worst they're just wrong, which they are.
The challenge for evolutionists isn't to persuade Creationists they're wrong - that isn't a reasonable expectation. Evolutionists can do no more than clearly describe and explain the evidence, and whether Creationists accept it or not is up to them. Evolution could only be threatened if Creationists were able to present valid scientific evidence for their position. If Humphreys and Snelling had legitimate scientific issues they would bring them to scientific venues instead of Creationist ones, and their "science" would be able to get a hearing anywhere in the world regardless of religion instead of just in conservative Christian venues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 04-09-2004 2:49 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 297 (98967)
04-09-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
04-09-2004 2:49 PM


Perhaps we should simply replace toe with ID, what has toe to offer that ID has not
I know it's hopeless, but ...
TOE has predictive power, ID has none.
TOE explains all the known evidence, ID explains none. ("Goddidit" is not an explanation, it's just a way of stopping further inquiry).
TOE has proven utility, ID has no proven utility and no hope of utility.
TOE is a scientific theory, ID is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 04-09-2004 2:49 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 297 (98994)
04-09-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brad
04-09-2004 1:54 PM


welcome
welcome to the board from a relative newbie
if you use the little [reply] button with the red arrow at the end of the message you are replying to then it gets linked, as mine is to yours -- that helps know which previous poster your reply is for.
I take that you have no problem with the concept of a very old earth...
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brad, posted 04-09-2004 1:54 PM Brad has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 297 (99003)
04-09-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
04-09-2004 2:49 PM


relative age
Its quite interesting your tree rings supports that the fossil record is quite young
Actually the tree ring data itself does not speak to the absolute age of anything older than their record, whether it is 11,000 years or 4.55 billion years ... but it (1) sets a lower boundary below which the age of the earth cannot rationally be considered (it would be irrational to simply reject the data), and (2) sets a mark on the geological column of age of relative dating such that anything below that age limit must be older, with layers far below being a lot older. In addition comparison of those tree ring ages with other dating methods like Carbon-14 show a strong correlation with the data justifying faith in such dating beyond those limits. The rational conclusion is that most of the fossil record is a lot older than the tree ring data by orders of magnitude.
The problems of Humphreys with Helium and Snelling with argon 36 do not correlate to the same climatological trends in all these age dating methods. This is where the critiques fall down in a jumble without going into the already available literature on why Humprheys and Snelling are mistaken in their information (suggested research -- see talkorigins ...) -- a full critique of age dating methods must show not only that each method is wrong but how it can have produced such similar data.
were to believe that there are not other like problems with all the dating methods, due to leaching, or simply due to proportional translocation of minerals in the rock sediments even before they erupted out of the earth,
Note that you are using canned criticism for information not included in the essay -- actual annual layers that show age and climatological trends, trends consistent for each of these different systems regardless that they are based on entirely different processes and different locations on earth.
Note further that clinging desperately to the young apparent age left by the tree ring data that can only be justified by ignoring the remainder of the dating methods shows that your "bubble filter" must be hard at work. And it is still older than the YEC model, just not by much.
what has toe to offer that ID has not
Perhaps you could give an example of something that ID has to offer? If so, I suggest that it be presented on the "is ID properly pursued?" (click) thread or as a new topic under the Intelligent Design Forum.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 04-09-2004 2:49 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 27 of 297 (99026)
04-09-2004 11:29 PM


Intelligent Design has no problem with the sciences of it all, but no interest in the theory of toe, given toe believes in micro-evolution too, they only disagree on the interpretation of cladistic similarities, toe believes in a common ancestor, ID says its all evidence of a common designer, irruducible complexities, etc... given the lack of transitional fossils between the different kinds, the evidences support life was designed and cladistic similarities without adequate fossil transitional evidence between the different kinds supports a common designer, darwin was wrong about the origin of the species, no evidence, to support his position, cladistic similarities only supports a common creator, etc...
I think you all believe the earth was created in the beginning, possibly 4 billion years ago, but your problem is that the earth was void without form for 4 billion +/- years, until God moved upon the face of the waters 13,350 approximate years past, it says darkness was upon the face of the deep, guess starlight couldn't reach through the frozen waters covering the face of the deep, however when God said let there be light, God turned its nucleur switch, the sun became a light (star)day 1, melting the void frozen waters of the earth, day 2 creation of the granites with the excess helium, and on day 4 God moved the earth to a proper distance from the sun, moon, and in a proper orbital plane in respect to the zodiac to maximize the light cast upon the earth, setting the sun and the moon in a proper proportional distance to be the same size in the sky, this is how he created them to be a light unto the earth for the creatures created on day 5 and 6, and it was good, and it still is, etc...
P.S. This is one perspective that an Old Earth Creationists might take, where the rocks would date old, but the fossils would be quite young, the problem is the evolutionists had no way to date fossil imprints, so they created an illusion that its possible to date these old rocks and say these young fossils buried within are that old, etc... the problem any way you look at it all, the fossils are young, so guess this makes the creationists, even those believing the earth is young, accurate in respect to fossil age, and toe is deceiving children that the fossils can be dated by the sediments that buried them, perhaps the very reason they want to keep creationisms out of the public domain, children would question the illusion of time, that the fossils are as old as these old rocks, challenging with a whole slew of questions, etc...This is but one senerio, of how it all happened, biblically, scientifically, the one not conflicting the other, rocks could date old, fossils could be young, but agree isotope dating methods are not without problems, but its not such a reach as dating a fossil imprint and determining its age by the earth that buried them, though you really have to respect the YEC bringing to light all the problems with isotope dating methodologies, argon rising, problems with radioactive decay constants, leaching, C-14 in coal, showing its not the age of the sediments that buried the coal, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-09-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2004 11:38 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2004 12:26 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2004 12:59 AM johnfolton has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 297 (99029)
04-09-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by johnfolton
04-09-2004 11:29 PM


given the lack of transitional fossils between the different kinds, the evidences support life was designed and cladistic similarities without adequate fossil transitional evidence between the different kinds supports a common designer, darwin was wrong about the origin of the species, no evidence, to support his position, cladistic similarities only supports a common creator, etc...
Do you suppose you could stop repeating claims that we've refuted? What with that being against the forum guidelines, and all. It would be better for you to support your claims rather than avoid the discussion and claim victory. You'd look a lot less like a crank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by johnfolton, posted 04-09-2004 11:29 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 04-10-2004 12:00 AM crashfrog has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 297 (99035)
04-10-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
04-09-2004 11:38 PM


Crashfrog, I don't see transitional evidences, though I see micro-evolution happening, but so do creationists, ID people, I'm going to take a break from this thread, the biggest problem is simply that evolutionists are dating rocks, counting questionable varves, though tree rings is interesting, but like varves affected by seasonal rain/snow fluctuations, watersheds, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2004 11:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2004 12:08 AM johnfolton has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 297 (99036)
04-10-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by johnfolton
04-10-2004 12:00 AM


Crashfrog, I don't see transitional evidences
Do you understand evolution well enough to know what a transitional form would be? Somehow, I doubt it. If you like you can open a thread, but there's more than enough transitional forms to convince anybody that hasn't already made an ideological committment not to believe in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 04-10-2004 12:00 AM johnfolton 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