Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 4:16 PM
36 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,798 Year: 11,834/19,786 Month: 1,615/2,641 Week: 124/708 Day: 58/66 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 346 of 357 (503634)
03-20-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the intrpertation 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.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 10:30 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 347 of 357 (503635)
03-20-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by shalamabobbi
03-20-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Your Data is Bogus
On divine intervention, see my article: http://www.torahtimes.org/articles/science.htm


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2009 8:44 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6390
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 348 of 357 (503636)
03-20-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Your Data is Bogus
I for one have no desire to give you any clicks. Please don't spam us with links to your site.

BTW, ever hear of the term off-topic.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:40 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 349 of 357 (503637)
03-20-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
hose back of the envelope calculations are perfectly valid to show that something is wrong with the tree ring conclusions

Unsupported assertion. Demonstrate your claim. With math, not handwaving.

In another thread.

Until then, the whole idea that tree ring dates correlate to an evolutionary timeframe is just propaganda.

The correlations between multiple independent measurements, that RAZD has documented, are observed data. By definition data is not propaganda. If you can't explain that data you have no explanation at all.

Edited by JonF, : most of my post disappeared!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 5:39 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 350 of 357 (503638)
03-20-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by RAZD
03-20-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
quote:
Some Recent Developments in Age Determination
I now focus on those dating methods which are claimed to give dates from several thousand years to about 1 million years, as these are cited in the National Geographic article, particularly with reference to presumed human evolution.

Let us consider attempts to check carbon-14 dates with other supposed indicators of time. It was recently claimed that a count of presumably annual varves at Lake Suigetsu, Japan, agreed with 14C dates to at least 38,000 years before the present.6 Conventional uniformitarian thinking would maintain that this agreement is powerful evidence for the accuracy of the dates: After all, we have agreement between two completely independent dating systems. Furthermore, one of the dating methods does not even require radioactive decay.

Well, not so fast, as it recently has turned out. As dates from other time indicators became available, the majority of them strongly disagreed with 14C. These new dates typically gave values as much as 10,000 years older than carbon-14 (within the 14C range of dates spanning 30,000 to 40,000 years before the present).7 Note that these dates are published, and so are presumably the good dates. So what is to be done with the data from Lake Suigetsu? As always, whenever an age determination falls out of favor, a rationalization must be invoked to justify its rejection. As documented in my earlier-cited works,3 there exists an elaborate Orwellian language for routinely dealing with unwanted dates. In the case of Lake Suigetsu, a set of missing varves was invoked.8

But what if the Lake Suigetsu data remains favored, for one reason or another? Never fear. Other rationalizations are available, just in case, for the data that disagrees with the Lake Suigetsu 14C chronology. These include incorrect initial- 230Th correction for the 230Th dates, unsupported gain or loss of uranium or thorium, a variety of possible errors in the correlation of deep-sea cores, etc.9


source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:56 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2009 9:26 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 351 of 357 (503640)
03-20-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
The alleged problem,overs only the very end of the Suigetsu data. I.e. not particularly relevant; assuming that Woody's correctly representing the data (probably a poor assumption, based on past experience) than there's still 33,000 years of correlation to be explained. And correlation with tree rings and ice cores and ...

Focusing on one item is the wrong thing to do. It's standard creationist practice, but it's still wrong. You need a meta-analysis that explains the observed multiple correlations.

{ABE} Another reason to suspect Woody's misrepresenting is his misrepresetnations earlier in the articlee, e.g. his repetition of the Ngauruhoe and Mt. St. Helens dacite and "fossil wood" frauds.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:47 PM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 9:21 PM JonF has not yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 352 of 357 (503644)
03-20-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by JonF
03-20-2009 8:56 PM


They don't correlate
You are the one misrepresenting the data. Why didn't you point out this discrepancy in the first place? Why did I have to dig it up?
And if you don't cite all the discrepant data, then why should I assume that those researchers didn't dump a lot of discrepant dates before they got some that agreed with their theory? Your "science" is just divination.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by JonF, posted 03-20-2009 8:56 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 353 of 357 (503646)
03-20-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
You are posting religious apologetics from AiG.

Sorry, when it comes to science, they lie. They have to! Science contradicts their religious beliefs, so they have no choice but to lie about the data and conclusions of science. Otherwise, they would have to admit that they are wrong.

You must realize that in a debate in the Science Forums, on this site, that to cite AiG is to admit that your disagreement with science is based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence? Eh?

Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest that radiocarbon dating is incorrect? I've worked with hundreds of samples, and other posters here are very familiar with the methods and techniques. Perhaps you should post your specific disagreements with the method so we can discuss them. But don't bother with cut and pastes from AiG--their discussions of radiocarbon dating are pure religious apologetics and very little science. You should be able to do better than that if the method is so flawed, eh? Give it your best shot.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:47 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1041 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 yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 355 of 357 (503664)
03-21-2009 1:38 AM


Going to close this one down soon
I'm still concerned about too many messages topics having technical problems.

In general, if there is a specific contention point happening, it would probably be better served by a fresh topic.

Closing down sometime this next hour.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-21-2009 3:09 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18577
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 356 of 357 (503667)
03-21-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:27 PM


Re: Got some data.... need more
Daniel4140 writes:

I don't care what you think about that PPT presentation.

What I think isn't important. What's important is the misrepresentation I demonstrated by quoting from the original article your PPT cited. What's important is making sure your conclusions are based on accurate information

This thread may close soon. If you like you could propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics with your PPT as the topic, and we can go through it claim by claim and see how they hold up to scrutiny.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:27 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 357 of 357 (503669)
03-21-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Adminnemooseus
03-21-2009 1:38 AM


Re: Going to close this one down soon
The time is now.

AM


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-21-2009 1:38 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019