Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 12:31 AM
27 online now:
DrJones*, glowby, PaulK, subbie (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,883 Year: 8,919/19,786 Month: 1,341/2,119 Week: 101/576 Day: 2/99 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 286 of 306 (259783)
11-15-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Christian
11-14-2005 4:50 PM


Book on the age of the earth?
ok, well at this point it's not so easy for me to see. Maybe there's a good book you can reccommend me ...

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.

... it doesn't mean evolution is correct.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 4:50 PM Christian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2005 9:26 PM RAZD has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 287 of 306 (260073)
11-15-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by RAZD
11-15-2005 12:15 AM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 12:15 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 8:52 PM Coragyps has responded
 Message 289 by Christian, posted 11-16-2005 4:34 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 288 of 306 (260045)
11-15-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coragyps
11-15-2005 9:26 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2005 9:26 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Coragyps, posted 11-16-2005 5:36 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 293 by JonF, posted 11-28-2005 9:22 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Christian
Member (Idle past 4419 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 289 of 306 (260285)
11-16-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coragyps
11-15-2005 9:26 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
I'll see if I can get ahold of a copy. Thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2005 9:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 290 of 306 (260299)
11-16-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
11-15-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 8:52 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 291 of 306 (263884)
11-28-2005 6:46 PM


another correlation
Seems like Christian is taking a breather.

For another correlation see
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=35&t=43&m=1
specifically
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=35&t=43&m=15#15


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 11-28-2005 7:15 PM RAZD has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 292 of 306 (263901)
11-28-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
11-28-2005 6:46 PM


Christian Update
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 6:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 9:55 PM jar has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 4852
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 293 of 306 (263943)
11-28-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
11-15-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
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).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2005 8:52 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2005 9:35 PM JonF has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 294 of 306 (263950)
11-28-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by JonF
11-28-2005 9:22 PM


Re: Book on the age of the earth?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by JonF, posted 11-28-2005 9:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Christian, posted 12-05-2005 5:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 304 by Nighttrain, posted 12-06-2005 2:10 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 295 of 306 (263952)
11-28-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
11-28-2005 7:15 PM


Re: Christian Update -- tree rings anyone?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 11-28-2005 7:15 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Coragyps, posted 11-28-2005 10:05 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Christian, posted 12-05-2005 5:19 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 296 of 306 (263956)
11-28-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by RAZD
11-28-2005 9:55 PM


Re: Christian Update -- tree rings anyone?
I don't know of a book, but
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 9:55 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 297 of 306 (265308)
12-03-2005 5:18 PM


Topic Transfer
In message 26 of the topic {Behavioural traits and created kinds} Faith responds:

Sure, but a creationist has to search for other explanations, you know, consider that probably these records were not always annual or something along those lines if they go back to before the Creation. 4844 years ago is before the Flood by most reckonings. So we have to consider that some trees survived it. The dove's bringing back an olive leaf suggests they did.

{AbE: However, this is off topic and I shouldn't have responded.}

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 12-03-2005 5:47 PM RAZD has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31621
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 298 of 306 (265311)
12-03-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by RAZD
12-03-2005 5:18 PM


Re: Topic Transfer
In message 26 of the topic {Behavioural traits and created kinds} Faith responds:
Sure, but a creationist has to search for other explanations, you know, consider that probably these records were not always annual or something along those lines if they go back to before the Creation. 4844 years ago is before the Flood by most reckonings. So we have to consider that some trees survived it. The dove's bringing back an olive leaf suggests they did.
{AbE: However, this is off topic and I shouldn't have responded.}

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.

Of course.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 5:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 6:17 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 7:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 299 of 306 (265318)
12-03-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Faith
12-03-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Topic Transfer - the issue here is correlations.
...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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 12-03-2005 5:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 300 of 306 (265326)
12-03-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Faith
12-03-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Topic Transfer
In message Faith responds:

Look, I've said nothing illogical or inconsistent so stop acting like this is some kind of ad hoc thing I'm doing. It is not. The animals were all on the ark, plants were not mentioned and an olive leaf is a good indication that many plants survived full grown, besides of course all the seeds that would have begun new plant life.

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.

That is not what I said. You have no interest in having a real discussion apparently. If that is the case I will be happy to end it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 12-03-2005 5:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019