|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
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: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024