Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3 of 144 (587360)
10-18-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


I once sent an email to ICR asking them for their best measurement of the age of the earth. They told me, in no uncertain terms, that it isn't possible to measure the age of the earth (meaning, of course, that there's no method that gives them the answer they want).

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 144 (589792)
11-04-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:16 PM


slevesque writes:
- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. This was in fact my very first thread at EvC, and if you want to discuss it you could dig up my old thread and we could start off from there.
- One that points to the given age. For example, the helium diffusion in zircon crystals experiment done by Humphreys and Baumgardner falls into this category.
Neither of those has any value for determining the age of the earth. The age of something in the earth is not the age of the earth. You need to find the age of the oldest thing in the earth. Anything older than the salt or the zircon crystals automatically nullifies them as age indicators.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:16 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:48 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 144 (589795)
11-04-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:48 PM


slevesque writes:
By any naturalistic model of the formation of the earth you choose, you will find that the oceans are pretty much as old as the earth itself.
Even if that was true, it isn't the age of the oceans that you're measuring; it's the amount of salt. To equate the amount of salt with age, you have to assume a constant inflow and outflow of salt. That assumption is unsupported.
Of course, the other problem you have is that your alternative methods don't give the same age.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:48 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 144 (589802)
11-04-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
11-04-2010 3:08 PM


slevesque writes:
If you and Taq want to discuss the salt in oceans issue, we'll do it in the appropriate thread.
I'm not discussing specific issues. I'm pointing out that your whole approach is wrong. You can't measure the age of the earth by finding one thing in it that's young. Only the oldest thing in the earth tells us the age of the earth. You can find a thousand things that are less than 4.55 billion years old but none of them refutes the measurement of 4.55 billion years.
slevesque writes:
That's because it gives a maximum age.
That's just the point. Your methods don't give "a maximum age". They give two different ages. Who's to say that either of them is the maximum?
If you want to show a maximum, you should only be citing the maximum. And you should also point out that the maximum age by your own alternative methods is well over 6000-10,000 years.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 32 of 144 (589825)
11-04-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-04-2010 4:45 PM


slevesque writes:
... we are dating the rock, but we are finding a maximum age for the ocean.
Since the age of the rock is older than your supposed age of the ocean, there's obviously something wrong with your assumptions.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 9:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 39 of 144 (589893)
11-04-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
11-04-2010 9:46 PM


slevesque writes:
Since the supposed age of the rock is older than my age of the ocean, there's obviously something wrong with your assumptions.
The age of the rock correlates between a dozen or more different methods. Your supposed age of the ocean doesn't correlate with anything.
slevesque writes:
Stating there's something wrong is the easy part, but if you can't find where it is wrong, you have no case at all, just assertion.
That's exactly what you're being told. You can't just assert that ocean salt gives the "true" age of the earth. You have to explain why all of the other methods are wrong and why they correlate so well with each other if they're all wrong. RAZD has a nice thread where you're welcome to try to do just that.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 9:46 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 43 of 144 (589904)
11-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:34 PM


slevesque writes:
Concerning RAZD's thread, you do realize I could build a similar one, with a bunch of so-called ''PRATT's'' which correlate with a young earth.
Please do that. It would be a first for creationists.
(By the way, correlating "with a young earth" isn't good enough. Your methods have to agree with each other to produce a definite age.)
slevesque writes:
You would then probably start by taking each one individually, and show where you think the reasoning is flawed in each one.
That's why they're called "Points Refuted A Thousand Times". They're refuted over and over again because creationists don't understand the refutations and misrepresent them.
slevesque writes:
Of course, at that point, we would agree that it would be stupid of me to just respond ''Yeah, but why do they correlate together so well then ?''.
The problem is that the young ages don't correlate to each other. Nobody has ever shown any correlation. The two examples that you gave today don't even come close to the same age.
You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away.
Edited by ringo, : Splling.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 4:57 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 144 (590200)
11-06-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by slevesque
11-06-2010 4:57 PM


slevesque writes:
ringo writes:
You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away.
This just shows you don't really want to have an intelligent discussion. Because I give three back to back replies right, trying to get w worthwhile discussion going, and you come in with this nonesense that I ''run away''.
You quote me and yet you don't address what you quoted.
Here's what I said in Message 43:
quote:
The problem is that the young ages don't correlate to each other. Nobody has ever shown any correlation. The two examples that you gave today don't even come close to the same age.
That's what you're running away from. You claim that you "could" do a correlation thread like RAZD's but you won't because we'd "probably start by taking each one individually, and show where [we] think the reasoning is flawed in each one."
Yes, that's exactly what we'd do, because that's how intelligent discussion works. If you are interested in intelligent discussion, you need to address the inconsistencies in each of your methods and the inconsistencies between your methods.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 4:57 PM slevesque 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