Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

I wish I could help you there, but I am not aware of an easy reader on this topic: part of the reason I put the topic together. I see what I can find. (perhaps some other poster has some suggestions?)Also, part of the problem is possibly having to deal with some preconceptions that are in conflict with the evidence, this is hard for any of us to overcome. Of course not. Not just because they are unrelated sciences, but also because no scientific theory can be "proved true" - they can be proved false and they can be validated by making predictions that happen, however the next test could prove them false.All it means is that the earth is not "young," as that concept has been {invalidated\proven false}, so we move on to a model that has an old earth.Hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The Age of the Earth by G Brent Dalrymple is the standard, but it does get pretty technical in spots. It's also maybe 15 years old now.

But does it cover the kinds of dating systems in the topic? I think that is what Christian is asking for, not just a book on the age of the earth.

I'll see if I can get ahold of a copy. Thanks

It covers all the long-time radioisotope methods very extensively - uranium/lead, potassium-argon, etc. Very little to none on carbon-14 and such short-timers. And Dalrymple is one of the leading experts in the world on the topic.

Seems like Christian is taking a breather.For another correlation see
http://EvC Forum: So now there is a record going back over 600,000 years
specifically
EvC Forum: So now there is a record going back over 600,000 years

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Just so you don't think Christian is ignoring you or wandered off, she has the inlaws intown for a few days.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dalrymple's "The Age of the Earth" is about what it says; the age of the Earth. He starts with a discussion of the history of attempts to estimate or measure the age of the Earth, covers basic radioactivity theory, then how particular radioisotope methods work (but only those that are useful for measurement of ages on the order of billions of years, so he does not cover 14C dating or disequilibrium dating), goes through long discussions geology and dating of the oldest rocks found on Earth (and here the 1991 publication date is a shame; he doesn't cover the Great Slave Lake rocks that are the current age champions, or the Jack Hills zircons that are the oldest terrestrial minerals found to date, 'cause they're post-1991), has lots of material on the oldest lunar rocks and meteorites, then peaks with a whole chapter on Pb-Pb dating from which we derive the 4.55 billion year age of the Earth, and winds down with discussions of related but less precise methods (such as the absence of short-half-life radionuclides from the Earth). So there's lots of interesting and important material in it, but not much about cross-corellation with non-radiometric methods (but there's lots on cross-corellation of different radiometric methods).

Christian should read the reviews on Amazon.The book is, it seems, pretty challenging. One would have to decide how much effort one wanted to put in. The reviews also indicate that it is worth the effort.

I'm not. I expect her to be looking into other information too (like Dalrymple's book). But thanks for the update.Anyone know of a good book on tree ring dating? That might help too.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't know of a book, but
Dendrochronology
for a starter and then
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/
for the main course will get you a decent start. Grissino has links to immense amounts of stuff.

In message 26 of the topic {Behavioural traits and created kinds} Faith responds: Transfering response to this comment here:The problem is not just "other explanations" but ones that are consistent with the data and show why the same climate correlations occur within different age dating layer counting methods in different parts of the world. Why are these methods so devastatingly accurate for the historical period? What changes to all of them to cause the same kinds of errors in different systems?Each of the layer counting methods have ways to correlate them to global climate and in each case the global climate patterns are the same AND match those that are documented in history.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Of course. Yup, of course, but documented history of such things is very very recent, and there is every reason to believe that things were drastically different before the Flood.

Those correlations with historical events show that the counting methods are valid. There is no evidence of any drastic change at any point in any of the measurement systems, only evidence that the same thing is happening year after year after year after year.Now read from the beginning of the thread and explain how those differences can possibly be, when did they occur and why they do NOT show up in any of the records.Explain why they affected the trees in california and europe the same, the glaciers in greenland and antarctica and south america the same (but by a different mechanism from the trees) and the layers of diatoms and clay in a lake in Japan (again a different mechanism) and .... so on through each method of counting annual layers.Take your time. The issue here is correlations.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In message Faith responds: Note, the tree in question was still growing in the ground when it was cut down in 1957 to count the rings (and ensure that there were no errors in the count) and there was no evidence of a geological flood at any time the tree was alive. When you say 6000 years ago, but not my 6000 years ago, cause you use a different measurement system, then all I am left with is "long, long ago" -- I have no way to correlate what you mean with what is a measurable age.Either we agree on a measurement system or we don't. If we don't, then "long, long ago" is all that is conveyed by numbers that are not in the same measuring system.If you can't correlate your measurement system with the evidence of layered ages that correlate to each other and to the grand climatological changes around the world, then you are left in the unenviable position of defending a system that does look ad hoc at best and pure myth at worst.Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.