Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 81 of 357 (369204)
12-12-2006 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Charley writes:
Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions.
You can develop a system of celestial mechanics based on a geocentric solar system. You can develop a set of equations based on cold transfer instead of heat transfer, or explain the propagation of light via luminiferous aether.
You can even have some modest success if you constrain your observations and ignore certain areas of inconvenient nonconformance and tack on some nonsensical terms here and there.
Different conclusions sure, however science is concerned with the right conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 8:32 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:14 PM iceage has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 85 of 357 (369827)
12-14-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
12-14-2006 8:14 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
This topic is about age correlations from multiple sources.
You just regurgitate a link that talks about a poster board and I am suppose to be impressed.
What now if I bury you with 100 links to peer reviewed papers that demonstrate deep time old earth, based on multi-source correlating rate evaluations? Do I win?
To address this I would recommend you:
  • Read up on Dr. Humphreys helium diffusion rates.
  • Read some of the existing rebuttals and counter discussions
  • Formulate your position in your own words and start a topic.
    You can start here.
    http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
    RATE's Ratty Results: Helium Diffusion Doesn't Support Young-Earth Creationism
    Dr. Humphreys Feels the Pressure
    Nevertheless from your reference:
    ICR writes:
    The visiting scientists did not necessarily agree with the conclusions but the authors received no major negative comments
    Oh that is positive. The other scientist are polite and somehow that is proof positive that this guy is on to something.
    ICR writes:
    We hope these researchers will spread the word that Creationist scientists are conducting quality work and have solid evidence for a completely different paradigm about the age of the earth.
    Try getting a job in the oil patch with a YEC badge. This must say something like maybe the "solid evidence" is not where they want to put their money.
    Really I wonder if the creationist are so cocksure that they are right why don't they start an oil exploration company using YEC methods and Christian investors and clean up.
    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:14 PM johnfolton has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 88 of 357 (369839)
    12-14-2006 10:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by johnfolton
    12-14-2006 10:40 PM


    Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
    charley writes:
    Your interpretation of the correlations does support an old earth (your simply banning any evidence to the contrary, etc...)
    And this is where you can present this banned evidence that is being overlooked.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 10:40 PM johnfolton has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 94 of 357 (369923)
    12-15-2006 1:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 91 by jar
    12-15-2006 11:58 AM


    Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
    Interesting link.
    andrill writes:
    The sediments shown here are made almost entirely of the remains of diatoms single-celled plants (algae) that lived in the surface waters of the ocean, where there was enough light to grow. When these plants died, the hard parts of their tiny bodies settled through the water to the ocean floor. Because each diatom is about the size of a grain of sand, the sediments you see here are made of the tiny shells of millions and millions of individual diatoms.
    This sample was taken 540 ft below the ocean floor. At first blush forget about the issue if the layers represent years or "storms" as YEC would have it; just the sheer number of the diatoms are impossible to form in within the boundaries of a young earth. In addition there are huge deposits of diatomacious chert and shale throughout the world.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:58 AM jar has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 105 of 357 (370115)
    12-16-2006 12:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
    12-16-2006 12:08 AM


    Re: NOW Back to the FUTURE thread: CORRELATIONS!
    This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!
    Well now that neatly solves the mystery of where all of the flood water went. It was turned into plasm and ejected into space as the energy release in such a short time would have been enormous! I sense a AiG paper here somewhere.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 12:08 AM johnfolton has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 136 of 357 (374143)
    01-03-2007 6:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 133 by Casey Powell
    01-03-2007 6:11 PM


    Re: Young earth, it's bogus
    Massive unsupported subjects. Convincing.
    Pick one of these (any one) and develop the logic on how it exclusively demonstrate a young earth and stick around to defend it, if you are able. No cut-n-paste, massive unsupported lists or link diarrhea.
    This thread is about age correlations there other threads concerning young/old earth such as:
    REAL Flood Geology
    Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
    Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
    YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
    Or start your own if you are prepared.
    You are welcome here. There are very very few YEC geology oriented posters here and those that are seem to be all fired up after reading some YEC propaganda. They quickly melt and run away after being exposed to some daylight.
    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:11 PM Casey Powell has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 167 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:06 PM iceage has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 137 of 357 (374149)
    01-03-2007 6:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 134 by Casey Powell
    01-03-2007 6:16 PM


    Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
    jesusfighter writes:
    As such, its completely unreliable to trust a Geologist who adheres to radiometric dating procedures to attempt to prove the age of a rock being such and such an age, since the methods do not provide that such a benefit to the Geologist.
    The oil industry seems to trust modern geology, as does the mineral exploration industry. Paleontologist use dating to predict where to find fossils, with positive results.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 134 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:16 PM Casey Powell has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 3:21 PM iceage has replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 166 of 357 (374477)
    01-04-2007 4:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 150 by Casey Powell
    01-04-2007 3:21 PM


    Re: Trying to date rocks is a problem
    Why is it whenever any of your posts sound semi-intelligent, it is when you plagiarize?
    The qualities you have displayed in your short time here are:
  • ignorant
  • disrespectful
  • arrogant
  • dishonest
    You are a credit to your faith...

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 150 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 3:21 PM Casey Powell has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 169 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:07 PM iceage has not replied
     Message 171 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:09 PM iceage has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 178 of 357 (375358)
    01-08-2007 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
    01-07-2007 1:15 PM


    Where are the informed YEC
    I am enjoying your magnum opus you are crafting.
    Unfortunately, the typical YEC will just roll their eyes back into their head after the first installment.
    I would like to see your "Carbon-14 Correlations to Lake Varves" as a stand alone topic as it is straightforward and with convincing correlations.
    Just where are all informed intelligent YEC'ers? The norm is that one will pop in, cut-n-paste something (confident they are going to rip the heathens a new hole) and then find themselves unable to defend their position and then quietly leave.
    The shallowness of the YEC position is glaring.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 177 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2007 1:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5905 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 265 of 357 (445586)
    01-03-2008 12:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object
    01-02-2008 10:17 PM


    Re: Benchmark Dating
    cfo writes:
    In addition, Charles Darwin ignored the experts in his day (Lord Kelvin) and augmented fantastically the age of the Earth in accordance to the needs of modification evolution.
    And Charles Darwin was correct and Lord Kelvin was very wrong as history demonstrates - Lord Calvin did not know about the internal heat generated by radioactive decay. Another example of Charles Darwin insight and genius.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-02-2008 10:17 PM Cold Foreign Object 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