Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
65 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons (2 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,036 Year: 4,148/6,534 Month: 362/900 Week: 68/150 Day: 41/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 49 of 1486 (653470)
02-21-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
02-20-2012 8:26 AM


Re: Evidence against a recent flood is in the correlations
However, the major problem for creationists to explain is not how each of the various age measuring systems could have individually malfunctioned in some way, but why they correlate with dates and events across the methods.

This can't be stressed enough. The results from Lake Suigetsu correlate with results from a lake in Poland. So we have two lakes on opposite sides of the world that have the same sorting of organic debris by 14C concentrations. Even within the same method there is considerable correlation.

The correlations become even more impressive when you compare different methods. The two sets of lake varve data also agree with tree dendrochronology from both Europe and North America, coral dating by annual growth patterns, and carbon dioxide captured in annual ice layers in both Greenland and Antarctica. I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating.

Creationists need to explain how all of these quite different methods all agree with one another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2012 8:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 3:06 PM Taq has replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 10:34 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 51 of 1486 (653476)
02-21-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
02-21-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Evidence against a recent flood is in the correlations
Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data.

Not only that, you can also find markers from known volcanic eruptions in the correct ice layers (to which the other methods correlate to). I even remember reading a paper where they used modern tree dendrochronology to show the spread of 14C spikes caused by atmospheric hydrogen bomb testing. They were actually able to show how the 14C spike spread from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere over a years time.

And another 5 years have passed, making it 10,439 years of continuous data uninterrupted by a purported flood.

That is another great point. All of these data sets would be easily interrupted by Noah's Flood. In fact, the ice sheets themselves would have lifted off of the continents (unless creationists want to claim that ice did not float in Noah's time?). You should also see an interruption in tree growth and diatom sedimentation. Heck, you would expect contamination from marine plankton in the Lake Suigetsu record, but it isn't there. Instead, it is all fresh water diatom growth and organic debris sorted by tiny differences in 14C.

C'mon creationists, explain these correlations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 3:06 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2012 9:41 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 485 of 1486 (808149)
05-08-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by RAZD
05-08-2017 7:59 AM


Re: For the newcomer YEC's ...
RAZD writes:

So let's start with Message 1 and see where reality leads us.

You have always done a great job of showing correlation between non-radiometric methods and radiometric methods. However, the correlation between completely independent radiometric methods is also quite compelling. Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite essays on the subject:

quote:

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.

"Radiometric Dating Does Work!" by G Brent Dalrymple
https://ncse.com/...ry-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work



This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 7:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 4:56 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 490 of 1486 (809521)
05-18-2017 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
05-18-2017 5:59 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
Faith writes:

There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway.

The map is not the territory. Those who can't understand this simple concept are open to mockery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 7:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 498 of 1486 (809599)
05-19-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
05-18-2017 7:03 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
Faith writes:

Uh huh. Well, so are some who do understand it.

That wouldn't even work in 2nd grade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 7:03 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 508 of 1486 (809983)
05-22-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by CRR
05-20-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
CRR writes:

Bristlecone pines (BCP) are possibly the oldest trees on Earth, with he oldest living specimen of bristlecone pine reputed to be approximately 4,900 years old. . .

As RAZD has stated many times, it is the consilience between data sets that demonstrates their accuracy. What you need to explain is how the Bristlecone Pine data in North American correlates with the Oak data from Europe. If local changes cause multiple rings or lack of rings, then how is it that a different species half way across the globe produces the same data?

On top of that, you also need to explain how the tree ring data also correlates with lake varves, corals, ice layers, and speleothems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by CRR, posted 05-20-2017 10:09 PM CRR has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2017 6:19 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 643 of 1486 (823349)
11-09-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by starman
11-09-2017 12:30 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
starman writes:

Rings that grew in hours look similar to ones that grow in this state in say a year.

That is entirely made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:30 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:36 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 646 of 1486 (823352)
11-09-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by starman
11-09-2017 12:34 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

I have Oklo. You have religion and fables about Oklo. Yu failed to prove a same nature in the past and you may NOT use one in models for the past. Evermore.

The ratios of decay products in the Oklo reactor exactly matches modern decay rates and products. The past matches the present, and we have the physical evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:34 PM starman has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 783 of 1486 (840632)
10-02-2018 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by creation
10-02-2018 3:40 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

You CANNOT discuss what time is like in the far universe because you do not know even what time is here.

Why should we even care about your rantings? It's not like you will be convinced by logic, reason, or evidence, so why should your opinions carry any weight?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 3:40 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:01 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1007 of 1486 (842828)
11-08-2018 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Faith
11-08-2018 5:50 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Faith writes:

Oh there's SO much No Evidence for the Flood. All those strata and fossils all over the world. They don't stop being evidence for the Flood just because they've been commandeered to another purpose by evos.

You claim that any strata is a product of the Flood no matter what it looks like. You are incapable of describing what features a geologic formation would need to have in order for it to be evidence against a flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 5:50 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(5)
Message 1013 of 1486 (842888)
11-09-2018 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1011 by Faith
11-09-2018 4:14 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Faith writes:

The evidence for the Flood is obvious. Sometimes things are too obvious for the scientific mind. It's just a matter of standing back and noticing the facts apart from the absurd interpretations laid on them.

Your claims are undermined by the fact that you will label any geologic formation as a product of the flood, no matter what it looks like. You don't have evidence. You have a dogmatic belief impervious to evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by Faith, posted 11-09-2018 4:14 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022