Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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)
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 196 of 357 (393811)
04-07-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Nighttrain
04-07-2007 8:27 AM


Topic!
Not on topic at all!.
RAZD has worked very hard on an excellent compilation of information. Please do not clutter it up with junk posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Nighttrain, posted 04-07-2007 8:27 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2007 9:40 PM AdminNosy has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 197 of 357 (393815)
04-07-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
04-06-2007 8:53 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Can you look up
F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226.
And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
I think I couldn't without spending $30; I don't have the access. It could probably be gotten from the MIT library for much less but that wouldn't be a text PDF, it would be a PDF of pictures of text. I have a couple of academic contacts I can try; hang on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2007 4:45 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 198 of 357 (393954)
04-08-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by JonF
04-07-2007 12:05 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Thanks. I'll see what I can find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 04-07-2007 12:05 PM JonF has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 199 of 357 (394162)
04-09-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by AdminNosy
04-07-2007 10:48 AM


Re: Topic!
Junk posts? Junk posts? And here I thought the nonsense from AIG and Snelling were junk posts.:-p While Raz has done sterling work, how many times do we have to refute the same dating three-shells and a pea trix that these creo websites FAIL to correct. Meanwhile, the professional geo organisations fail to clamber over Snelling with his two-faced approach to dating, confirming it in geo journals, and refuting it on religious sites. It cost Plimer a fortune in court and years of heartbreak when he exposed the shenanigans of Snelling and his ilk while professional bodies stood idly by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by AdminNosy, posted 04-07-2007 10:48 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6169 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 200 of 357 (394209)
04-10-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by JonF
04-06-2007 10:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Once the constituents of the samples were completely understood and valid, well-defined, well-understood, and replicable sample selection and preparation methods were established, all the methods gave concordant dates.
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by JonF, posted 04-06-2007 10:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RickJB, posted 04-10-2007 10:35 AM Reserve has not replied
 Message 202 by ringo, posted 04-10-2007 12:25 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 5:37 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 10:07 PM Reserve has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 201 of 357 (394219)
04-10-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Reserve
04-10-2007 9:33 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Reserve writes:
The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory.
False. The physical nature of rocks and the nature of radioactive decay have been verified by the repetition of various experiments by thousands of different scientists across the world.
It is telling how you have responded to the evidence contained within this thread. Like many YECs, you are reduced to either:-
1. pointing to some kind of ridiculous global conspiracy.
2. attempting to undermine all science by initiating an entirely pointless debate as to the nature of reality itself.
Both of these objections serve only to reveal the weakness of your position.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM Reserve has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 202 of 357 (394237)
04-10-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Reserve
04-10-2007 9:33 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Reserve writes:
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample.
"Complete understanding" applies to the available data - there is no disagreement among those who have studied the data.
If the data has been misunderstood, if the data is inconclusive, if new data doesn't fit, etc. young-earthers are welcome to step up with their own science.
They don't.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM Reserve has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 203 of 357 (394324)
04-10-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Reserve
04-10-2007 9:33 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples?
The community of scientists, after results are examined and understood and replicated.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown.
Ah, the old "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing" canard. Very popular, totally invalid.
I should not have written "complete understanding"; better I should have written "sufficient understanding". The dates were conclusive based on precise laboratory measurements and well-understood physics, chemistry, and geology. The dates fell out of the observations, and did not agree with some people's (e.g. Leakey) idea of the ToE. They were not massaged to fit with the ToE; they were investigated further because different methods gave different answers. We know why some investigators found anomalous results. The dates are conclusive because of all of physics, geology, and chemistry (and I mean all); the ToE doesn't really come into it. There's no significant errors in the later results unless everything we think we know about physics and chemistry and geology is wrong. Radiometric dating is correct because your computer works ... think on that until you understand.
Science does not try to account for possible future observations that may or may not agree with today's observations. All we got is what we have today (and we have one h*** of a lot of observations today) and the best theory that fits all those observations. YEC and Noye's Fludde do not even fit 1% of the observations.
But you are still avoiding the point. Say for the sake of argument that all the dates for the KBS Tuff are wrong. Heck, say for the sake of argument that all K-Ar dates are wrong. There's still an incredibly wide-spread pattern of agreement between different dating methods, including non-radiometric methods, that must be explained by any viable theory. If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash. It doesn't matter how many individual problem cases you can come up with (especially since most if not all of them are not problem cases); they're still nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern. This thread is for discussing the pattern; individual results are on-topic only insofar as they relate to the pattern. Denying that the pattern exists ain't gonna work; it exists. Claiming that a few anomalous results invalidate the entire pattern ain't gonna work; nothing is 100% known in science, but the pattern is 99.99999% understood (hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern, remember).
So what's your explanation of the pattern? Magic? Hundreds of thousands of coincidences that just happened to agree with mainstream science 99.999999% of the time but also gave wrong answers 99.999999% of the time? Something else?
If you think that future observations will overthrow mainstream science, fine. Admit you've got nothing and bide your time until those observations show up. Don't hold your breath; people have been looking for those observations for hundreds of years … 99.9999999% of what they've turned up flat-out contradicts YEC and Noye's Fludde. The remainder is unexplained by any theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM Reserve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2007 7:11 PM JonF has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 204 of 357 (394341)
04-10-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by JonF
04-10-2007 5:37 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
A very important point, Reserve, that I trust JonF won't mind me repeating:
If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 5:37 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 357 (394383)
04-10-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Reserve
04-10-2007 9:33 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples?
When the anomalies are explained by science based on observation, theory, prediction, test and validation. And by independent verification by replication of the results. That is how science works.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples.
Not the samples per se, the history of the area and the sediments the samples came from: if there are reasons to think the dates are suspect due to those factors then you TEST that concept by looking for variations in the dates for different parts and see if you can reproduce such errors. They did that. Then you look for ways to eliminate the conflicts that cause the erroneous dates. They did that. Then you see if what you get is consistent between different samples tested in different ways with those conflicts eliminated. They did that. Then you look at the results. They did that: the dates agreed between the different methods once the causes of errors had been removed.
Do you really think the dates can be fudged to come out with whatever results one wants? If you do, then how do you explain all the dates that "just happen" to come out right the first time? Even on blind sample testing?
The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it.
Nope. Else they would have stayed with Leakey's 2.6 million years eh?
Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day).
Well ... as soon as there is a testable theory for how this could actually work ... and how it would explain all the evidence from all the different sources for the age of the earth ... then all this amounts to is mere handwaving in desperation while denying that the evidence shows consistent dates for an old earth. Don't hold your breath however.
Let me reiterate -- the age of the earth by various non-radiometric methods, methods based on a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand -- give these results:
  • Message 2 - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
  • Message 3 - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
  • Message 4 - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
  • Message 5 - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
  • Message 6 - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
  • Message 7 - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
  • Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
These systems do not rely on radiometric dating methods, but on annual layers. Each one invalidates the YEC concept. Each one correlates with the others.
You need to address ALL the information, not just isolated dating anomalies that even if they are correct STILL show that the earth is old.
Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Reserve, posted 04-10-2007 9:33 AM Reserve has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 206 of 357 (394589)
04-12-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
04-06-2007 8:53 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226.
And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
Total of three PDFs sent to your Yahoo account ... let me know if you got them (or didn't).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 8:30 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 207 of 357 (394711)
04-12-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by JonF
04-12-2007 12:35 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Thanks. Gottum. Doesn't look like any great surprises so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by JonF, posted 04-12-2007 12:35 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Nighttrain, posted 04-13-2007 5:32 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 208 of 357 (394774)
04-13-2007 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
04-12-2007 8:30 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Dunno if this creo site has been linked before. A quick search for Laverna Patterson came up with naught in our archives. Got to give her credit for a well laid out, bright and easily-comprehensible (to believers) set of arguments.There are dating, Flood, moondust, Genesis, etc.,etc.segments--something for everyone. Mostly same old, but there were a couple of twists. Try it and we can dissect it.
Account Suspended

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 8:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 209 of 357 (410927)
07-18-2007 1:15 AM


Bump de bump bump grind
Like the geology threads the dating ones seem to dim quickly. Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web. Correlations are, to the best of my knowledge, never touched by creo websites.

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2007 10:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 210 of 357 (428867)
10-17-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by NosyNed
07-18-2007 1:15 AM


Re: Bump de bump bump grind
Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web.
Or something they have been told by some creatortionista culling the gullibles.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by NosyNed, posted 07-18-2007 1:15 AM NosyNed 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