Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
98 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8963
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 283 of 1486 (728263)
05-26-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
05-26-2014 10:33 AM


consillience
What consillience is violated?

The agreement between the different radiometric dating methods is the issue. They are based on very different physical processes and yet they all agree. And are also not in disagreement with any other ways of estimating the time that has passed.

If I had an atomic clock, a pendulum clock with hanging weights, a modern quartz watch and a wind up wrist watch which all agree on the amount of time that has passed then it would be a bit crazy to decide that the time interval is not correct and that somehow they are all running slow (or fast) to the same degree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 10:33 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 12:04 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8963
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 285 of 1486 (728267)
05-26-2014 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by NoNukes
05-26-2014 12:04 PM


Samples
However, I also understand that there is very little radiometric evidence on earth of a 4+ billion year formation. It is also the case that material on earth arrived from outside of the solar system and thus at least conceivable might predate the formation of the earth by a large margin. No changes in decay rates would be required.

I understand better now (or should have read more carefully before). You are correct that we haven't found anything on the planet that is original, unaltered material from it's initial formation.

However, everything we have that is clearly younger than the earth points back to an origin of 4+ billion years. In addition there is good reason to expect the moon to be close to the same age as the earth but possibly younger and it dates to the same time.

In addition, because of the nature of the materials in the meteorites, there is good reason to expect them or at least most of them to originate at the time of the formation of the solar system too and they date in the 4+ billion year time as well.

You are right that there is some mixing in of the idea of how the solar system formed mixed into the thinking here but if that is ignored that there is still have another form of consillience to explain-- that of the agreement of measurements made of the different samples -- earth based material, meteorites and the moon samples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 12:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8963
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 577 of 1486 (815934)
07-26-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:40 PM


Book
Ya know, you've got the beginnings of a useful book in these posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 4:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 3:13 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021