Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 357 (320390)
06-11-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:59 AM


Re: Young earth, it's true
quote:
The rocks in outerspace break apart from the sun's rays. These rocks eventually turn into dust, according to the time of their exposure to the sun's rays. So, it was thought, before man landed on the moon, that when man would land on the moon, the rocket would sink in about 20 miles of dust, since it was thought the earth and moon were very old, millions or billions of years.
If I remember properly, you were using Answers in Genesis as a source for many of your assertions. Perhaps you should read their tract Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
One of your absolute proofs of a young Earth, the moon dust argument, has been abandoned by AIG itself as an embarrassment.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:59 AM Someone who cares has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 25 of 357 (346151)
09-03-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hughes
09-02-2006 11:22 PM


What?
Hughes writes:
Simply wanted to point out that none of these various "correlations" are a test of time.
In other words. You can go through each and every test (core samples, to radiometric sampling) and it's not time that you are testing.
In any words, what are you talking about?
If a given time in the past is the answer to given decay equations, or counting rings or layers, what else would one be testing for?
If the ages correlate from so many different methods, does that not show that time was not magically expanded or contracted in the past? If that's what you mean, for one guess.
Actually, I don't understand what you mean, do you? Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 11:22 PM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by kuresu, posted 09-03-2006 1:45 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 357 (346335)
09-04-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


Paleomagnetism?
Was just curious why paleomagnetism was not included with your age correlations as magnetic reversals and magnetic orientation are usually correlated to Ar/Ar and Kr/Ar radioisotope dates. Granted it is considerably less discrete then radioisotope methods but it is often used as supporting evidence when dating formations in the literature.
Apparently such data goes back to the late Ordovician, with some gaps, which would mean a minimum Earth age of 450 mya.
Here is an online textbook chapter for anyone interested:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Paleomag/book/chap09.pdf
And the whole book, for background:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Paleomag/book/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2006 11:14 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 31 of 357 (346336)
09-04-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hughes
09-04-2006 12:15 AM


Last Thursday
If the creation model (any of them) is accurate, then the assumption that all trees started as seeds is in error. Meaning that the core sample, could contain years that were placed their by the creator, at the beginning.
Or everything could have been created last Thursday, including all memories of the past along with the false appearance of age, by Loki, the trickster god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hughes, posted 09-04-2006 12:15 AM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 09-04-2006 1:50 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 37 of 357 (346518)
09-04-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hughes
09-04-2006 5:27 PM


Definition of Time
First, I didn't see a definition of "Time." What is it exactly?
I hope RAZD dosen't mind my input here, perhaps if I answer this question well, I can spare him some "time."
What do you know, right at the top of a Google search for "time definition"
define:time - Google Search
Usually, ages are measured in years, especially when they happened long ago. A year is the difference between one exact position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and when the next rotation places the Earth in the same position. The events between the two rotational positions are said to have happened at that year or that "time."
A similar definition exists for day except now it is the Earth's rotation around it's axis instead of around the sun.
Need I go on in detail?
There are 365.224 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Year, day, hour, minute, and second, are all measures of "time."
The tree rings and varves are counted between alternating layers of light and dark, or different compositions. Each layer is considered a year because each is related to how the Earth rotates around the sun. This is because of the difference between summer and winter due to the rotation around the sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis.
For radiometric dating see: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
There you will find the equation that solves for time. It is in the form of whatever units are inputted, usually years, as defined above.
I hope this helped.
ABE - There is another definition for second, which correlates to the Earths rotations, it is (from Wikipedia):
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation which corresponds to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the Caesium-133 atom.
I think it's neat that atoms both tell us the time, and when certain ones decay, tell us how old something is in years, a measure of time.
ABE2 - Isn't the real debate between you stating the Earth has only made aproximately 6000 revolutions around the sun as opposed to what RAZD, myself and many others believe to be approximately 4,550,000,000 Earth revolutions around the sun?
Isn't a demand for a definition of time an attempt to dodge the evidence RAZD has presented for the Earth going around the sun much more than 6000 times?
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : speling
Edited by anglagard, : Bring up time definition as dodge

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hughes, posted 09-04-2006 5:27 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hughes, posted 09-04-2006 11:19 PM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 72 of 357 (368849)
12-10-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by johnfolton
12-10-2006 3:56 PM


Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Charley (?) writes:
However as the ice varves continue to melt due to the increased solar cycle of the last hundred years all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years.
That's interesting, this article http://brent.xner.net/pdf%20files/Chile3FINAL.pdf claims that not only are there pollen grains and bacteria in ice cores from Greenland, Tibet, Antarctica, and Bolivia dating back 20,000 years (that the scientists have checked so far), but that, in the case of the bacteria, they are able to revive them and check their DNA.
With further research, examination of such DNA may wind up being yet another example of support for evolution and an old Earth.
Anticipating the next piece of YEC apologetics, how did the post-flood bacteria and pollen burrow several hundred feet from the surface to be discovered at that depth in the ice core?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by johnfolton, posted 12-10-2006 3:56 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2006 6:37 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 12-11-2006 10:01 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 80 of 357 (369183)
12-11-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
12-11-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Charley writes:
Percy explained this thread is not about the accuracy of the varves, but that they correlate. I'm not sure the AIG people would have a beef other than the truth has been stretched, etc...
The dating of the Greenland GISP-2 ice core is explained in the following article by Paul H. Seeley titled "The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global" from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith at http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
The ice cores are dated by three independent methods.
1. Visual counting of layers - Because the snowfall in summer consists of larger coarse-grained particles and in winter smaller fine-grained particles, the layers are visually distinct for the most recent 12,000 years.
2. Annual layers of dust are counted as they correlate with visual counts at a rate of 98% where they overlap. The dust is a result of late winter/early spring winds which are global in nature. Counting the dust layers results in a maxomum age of 250,000 BP.
3. Electrical conductivity between annual layers varies due to the late spring and summer precipitation containing more nitric acid than winter precipitation.
4. The O18/O16 ratio count shows layers as the lighter isotope is preferentially evaporated from the ocean in lower temperatures. This method has not been used to date the GISP-2 core beyond 1100 years because it was only done to validate the other correlations.
The first 3 methods corrlate within 1% for the first 11,500 layers, 5% for layers from 11,500 BP to 50,000 BP and 10-20% for 50,000-110,000 BP.
The article concludes by pointing out Oard's falsehoods and misinterpretations along with the refutation of the buried plane story, the usual expected fare for those who follow the debate.
Edited by anglagard, : Fully cite source and clarity

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 82 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2006 7:11 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 83 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2006 8:01 PM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 102 of 357 (370059)
12-15-2006 9:43 PM


Correlations in Graphic Form
Individuals interested in this topic may want to check out this website -- Figures for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation at Figures for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation which has many of the correlations examined in this thread presented in graphic form.
I would have preferred posting the actual graphs but am unsure of copyright as they would be third generation. Better to err on the side of caution in such matters.

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 109 of 357 (370226)
12-16-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
12-16-2006 12:08 AM


Tale of Two Charts
Charley writes:
I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) nothing of substance anyway.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis
How come your AIG chart of the GRIP ice core does not look at all like the one published in Nature and correlated to oxygen isotope ratios and abundances among foraminifera in the North Atlantic?
Figure 6-4b for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation
Now AIG wouldn't be guilty of massaging the data to fit some preconcieved notion would they?
Edited by anglagard, : Correct confusion between AIG and ICR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 12:08 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2006 4:04 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 111 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 5:48 PM anglagard has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 116 of 357 (370326)
12-17-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by johnfolton
12-16-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Tale of Two Charts
Charley writes:
Michael J. Oard based his reference to Keigwins ice-core chronology chart that was discussed by Dansgaard. It was not in Nature 365 sept 9 1993,
To repeat my message 80 in this thread:
quote:
The dating of the Greenland GISP-2 ice core is explained in the following article by Paul H. Seeley titled "The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global" from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith at http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
Obviously you have not read or refuse to address the five reasons why Oard's work is false. However, I understand that it is quite common for YECs to refuse to actually read anything posted as a link since they are often about winning at all costs regardless of the behavior it may involve, including bearing false witness.
Therefore, for the benefit of our audience, I will summarize why Oard is full of crap.
1. The thickness of the layers is not related to the dating of the layers using counts of winter hoar frost, laser light scattering (LLS) due to dust content, and electrical conductivity measurements (ECM).
2. The assumption Oard makes, that there was only one ice age would require a model that would produce melt layers, not hoar frost layers. The difference between the two is easily distinguishable. Also, outside of what is discussed in the cited paper, there have been many times the Earth has been subject to ice at the poles as evidenced by past glacial deposits, particularly at the end of the Permian and just before the beginning of the Cambrian.
3. Warm and cold oscillations due to short-term storms are not physically capable of creating hoar frost or differences in electrical conductivity due to Ph content.
4. Purported snow dunes have different characteristics than annual precipitation layers and would have no effect on LLS and ECM measurements.
5. Any assertion that cold and warm weather patterns create more layers is not relevant to hoar frost, LLS, and ECM as winter, dust content, and conductivity are independent of individual short-term storms.
Please answer these objections before simply reasserting the same old arguments from the seriously flawed Oard papers.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 5:48 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2006 10:13 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 117 of 357 (370328)
12-17-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by johnfolton
12-16-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Tale of Two Charts
Charley writes:
What is more interesting is the chart (figure 3). After 1500 meters the meters of water drops dramatically till it reads near 0 thru 3000 meters. Yet were to believe that each fluctuation in Oxygen is an annual layer no matter the thinness of the layers, etc...
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis
Yes the chart in figure 3 is very interesting, it clearly shows the difference between actually plotting data and pronouncing the YEC "facts" completely bereft of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 5:48 PM johnfolton has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 118 of 357 (370338)
12-17-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by johnfolton
12-17-2006 1:06 AM


Refute Indeed
charley writes:
It also refutes that the artic has been covered in ice to explain why there is no direct evidence older than 16,500 years. The reason C14 is so suggestive of a young earth is that the peat was frozen not contaminated.
How does one refute that the Arctic has been covered in ice when it is covered in ice now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2006 1:06 AM johnfolton has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 237 of 357 (437159)
11-29-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by johnfolton
11-29-2007 12:27 AM


Re: Its a Young Earth Folks !!!!!!
And your point is....?
Do you intend to clutter this thread with irrelevant factoids all the way to version 1 no. 4 or 5 or 6?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by johnfolton, posted 11-29-2007 12:27 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by johnfolton, posted 11-29-2007 2:30 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2007 2:29 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 280 of 357 (502735)
03-13-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Garbage in, Garbage out
Daniel4140 writes:
Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact". However, my own testimony is that when it is possible to examine the supposed "facts" that they fall apart, and I present the conclusions of other creationists to encourage people to do their own examination. If it is honest, I believe they will find on the level of their own experience this to be true, provided they resist "group think" and don't fall into logical traps.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, instead of relying on an unquestioning devotion to the likes of AIG and ICR. One thing about tree rings, ice cores, varves, stalagmite layers, and so on is that they can be counted using one or even two eyes and simple addition. The simple fact that they all correlate with each other and to every other available scientific method of age determination is not enough to saddle up that triceratops and do battle with the GE and Vesta windmills that have been sprouting up around here like the progeny of a rabbit warren.
Sancho Panza here says you need more than Ken Ham and Morris inheritance to overturn all physics, chemistry, geology, biology, linguistics, history, and common sense. Provide your evidence beyond PRATTs or be prepared to get burned.
Am a bit busy to properly participate beyond this basic criticism, I leave the patience and through explanation to RAZD. However, if you are still around after my mom's estate gets fully probated, I'm sure we will meet again.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 7:05 PM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 304 of 357 (502979)
03-14-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Just want to let you know that the crowd over at Dreamcatcher are having a lot of fun at your expense for using the subtitle "Use evidence I can agree with."
FSTDT fodder indeed.
Signing up is free if you want to defend any honor you may think you have against those who are currently ROTFLOL.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 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