Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 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)
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 278 of 357 (502713)
03-12-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Daniel4140
03-12-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Correlations
Hi Daniel,
How much interpretation is there when counting tree rings? and varve layers?
That's all it takes to get us back 40,000 years.
Not much room for error or misinterpretation in measuring annual layers of ice either.
That takes us back 650,000 years.
That is sufficient I think to disprove a young earth from a biblical perspective..
But if you really want to crack open that mind of yours join me here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Daniel4140, posted 03-12-2009 9:30 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM shalamabobbi has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 281 of 357 (502736)
03-13-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact".
Hi Daniel,
I am wondering why you did not respond to the thread I linked to. How do you explain ERV patterns that occur randomly to be the same in different species, specifically chimps and humans? I think this evidence alone trumps all other evidence in favor of evolution.
I think when you look into data you must be in the habit of "not viewing" the argument of the evolutionist since they are on "the opposing side". The scientist does not have this issue with "who's claims can be trusted" since the data can always be revisited and evaluated anew by anyone and an unbiased conclusion reached.
There are rather strong rebuttals to your claims. I will offer some. But the problem which this thread addresses is IF your arguments are correct, then why the agreement between different physical techniques of dating? The model you present for C14 with a time clock starting 6,000 years ago modified by a flood would cause C14 dating to come into disagreement with tree ring dating and varve dating. Older varve layers would be C14 dated much older than that which is found to be the case. Or if they were not annual layers they should have all the same C14 date at least much closer than what is observed.
This is where the creationist model fails. When you make individual objections and propose a mechanism that explains away one fact, the proposed explanation is discarded when the next fact is explained away with some other technique. The explanations are inconsistent with one another and fail to agree. That is why they are ad hoc in nature.
You offer the 6,000 year old starting clock for C14 but the observed varve deposits with the observed C14 variation agrees with the standard geologic model. However it is not explained at all by your proposed model. Let me agree with your C14 assumptions and accept it without debate. How next do you explain that the varve layers vary as though C14 dating by the geologic model assigned each layer to one years time? Your model would require deposition that greatly exceeds annual initially, and then gradually/smoothly varied towards an annual deposition.
Do you see the issue here.
You are guilty of compartmentalized thinking in attacking and finding fault with each geologic fact, without making those faults you find harmonize with each other.
Liquefaction does not explain varve deposits.
quote:
Take a closer look at those bedding planes. On many of them you will find tracks, trails, burrows, and borings. In other words, extensive evidence for bioturbation. These prove that, for some minimum amount of time, each bedding plane remained exposed at the sediment-water interface, with organisms burrowing through the sediment, crawling across its surface, and so forth. The borings are particularly important because they clearly indicate that the sedimentary substrate was hardened after deposition but before the boring. On other bedding planes, you might find successive layers of mudcracks, or sandstone foresets with raindrop impressions. On other bedding planes ('hardgrounds'), you will find a whole ensemble of organisms preserved *in situ.* In these cases, it can be said confidently that one layer was deposited, sedimentation stopped, the sea-floor hardened, and was then colonized by organisms which bored into the surface and *then* grew to adult size. This clearly refutes Brown's proposed scenario.
ref
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pflood.htm
Here is an explanation of the fossil "problem".
quote:
Decay is slowed dramatically in conditions of anoxic water. In other words, there is virtually no oxygen at the bottom of the lake, and thus other living organisms could not reach the bottom of the lake to scavenge the carcasses. This is what we see with the bog people. When you throw in the two additional variables of oxygen level and scavenger population, the young earth theory clearly does not pose a threat to the standard geologic explanations.
ref
http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm
I'll leave the rest for now and come back later if no one else answers first..

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

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 292 of 357 (502843)
03-13-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Have any of you read his chapter on the Grand Canyon? An honest person will have to admit it is more credible than any evolutionary explanation.
Oh certainly, but I didn't find any mention of where earth's drain plug is located...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 296 of 357 (502869)
03-13-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Hey Daniel,
I think Brown in putting together his flood model got carried away with the idea of water lensing and liquefaction due to the huge waves created by tectonic activity that he completely forgot about poor Noah and company in that ark. This may be the result of compartmentalized thinking, not sure though. How exactly would any boat survive the kind of wave action he is proposing.
Where is that evidence? Oh right we're here, so he must have made it...
Maybe some evidence of the computer simulations he ran and the results would be helpful, instead of his generalizations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 7:10 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 342 of 357 (503629)
03-20-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Your Data is Bogus
The RATE group was put together to study the issues of radiological dating methods to discover the obvious flaw missed by scientists brainwashed with old earth assumptions.
The RATE group spent much donated money to come up with a plausible radiological model that supports a young earth. Note that they could not do so without invoking the supernatural. Even with this invocation they were left with a "major problem" that they can't seem to find a resolution to. The "fact" that radioactivity isn't "good". I guess we all have our Goliaths to do battle with..
The RATE group suspects that large amounts of radioactive decay occurred during the first three days of Creation as part of the supernatural Creation process. The jury is still out and, until we complete our research phase, this concept is only hypothetical. The presence of supernatural "process" during Creation is essential to our approach, however.
The implications of "process" during Creation are much deeper than at first might be thought. If a radioactive "decay" process occurred rapidly during Creation and continued more slowly thereafter, how is it possible for God to say at the end of the sixth day, "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31)? The assumption when saying this, of course, is that radioactive decay is inherently "bad". The RATE group does not have an adequate response to this criticism yet. We will need to address this theological issue further as we conduct our research over the next few years.
One wonders what research over the period of years, all generously funded by Christian donations, will bear upon an answer to a supernatural question/dilemma.
reference
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
Another coincidence that runs against the young earth model is the lack of short lived radioactive isotopes in the earth which correlates with all the other evidence presented here. This data conveniently fits an old earth model but requires yet another ad hoc explanation from YECs.
reference
The Origin of Iodine-129: By Physics or Fantasies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 6:04 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:40 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2839 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 354 of 357 (503655)
03-20-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the interpertation of large ages is invalid since the 14C was not in equilibrium and still, to this very day, has not reached equilibrium. The non-equilibrium condition means that the spread of past dates 0 to 60,0000 B.P. collapses to only 4400 years.
(I did not respond to your following post as it is OT in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the assertion of 'sola scriptura' start another thread and I'll participate there.)
Let's accept your model for C14.
By your first sentence quoted above C14 correlates with the stratum.
But now the problem is that you are superimposing a correlation of a non-equilibrium model for C14 upon a linear layering mechanism. This means that the annual layers are MUCH more frequently deposited than annually initially, (since you agree that they correlate with C14), and that they vary in deposition smoothly from this initial condition to an annual rate today. That is the only way that you can get a correlation of layers with C14 that correlates in the same manner physically in your model and in the standard geological model.
If you assume that the flood layed down many layers in a short time frame those layers would share the same C14 signature, which by your first sentence quoted above, you agreed is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:35 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