Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
562 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 560 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,918 Year: 3,564/14,102 Month: 184/321 Week: 44/59 Day: 5/4 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Inactive Member

Message 93 of 1486 (663701)
05-26-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:40 PM

Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Concerning the Dendrochronology (tree ring) references, doesn't that require atmospheric calibration? After all, tree rings can grow differently based on atmospheric content, so since we now know ancient earth's atmosphere was different, with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, how can we be sure oxygen levels at the time did not result for error?

Concerning Message 4, varves are said to represent millions of years, yet Josh McDowell and Don Stewart pointed out cases in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" where the evidence appears to indicate a much shorter time span. To quote from pg. 206 in the print version:

The Eocene Green River formation of Colorado and Wyoming contains a deposit of fine-grained shale with beautifully preserved fossil fish. Matthews says of this,

"Probably the best-known fossil-fish fauna is that of the Eocene Green River beds of southern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado. These strata contain large numbers of well-preserved bony fishes."

The Green River formation is a 'varved' or banded deposit. Over the 2,600 or so feet of the shale, there are six-and-one-half million bands. Each band is believed to have taken one year to deposit, which if true, would mean it took 6,500,000 years to deposit the entire thickness of the shale. At least, this is the usual interpretation of the Green River deposit.

Several features of the Green River tend to contradict the usual interpretation of slow deposition at the rate of one band per year. First, the fossil fish are pressed flat between the bands. Second, one can see the outline of the entire, fish, not just the bones. That means the flesh hadn't rotted at the time the fish was buried. Finally, the thickness of each band is such that it would be difficult for a fish to be preserved. The average thickness of a band is about 5 thousandths of an inch. In the specimen in this author's collection, the bands are approximately 1 millimeter (one thousandth of a mater or 4 hundredths of an inch) thick.

What do these facts mean? Well, it is practically impossible for the dead fish to have been preserved if it had been covered by only one millimeter of mud. If one places a dead fish on the bottom of an aquarium and covers him with one millimeter of mud, the fish will rot and float to the surface. Very little decay is seen in the fossil fish of the Green River beds.

Secondly, one millimeter of mud would not provide enough weight to press the fish as flat as they are seen. Thus the only logical explanation for the appearance of the Green River fish is that the entire weight of the formation was laid down rapidly. Only in this fashion could the fish be buried deeply enough to preserve them while also flattening them.


It's on pages 205-207 online here:


This, though, is one clear case I know of where varves are assumed to indicate vast time spans under Gradualistic assumptions, yet evidence clearly indicates they were instantly fossilized. Otherwise, the flesh outlines wouldn't be visible, they wouldn't have been fossilized at all (depositional rates would be far too slow), there would be a thicker layer of mud, and the fish would not be pressed flat as they are.

Concerning the ice layers, they are trying to calibrate for atmospheric levels even though we now recognize oxygen levels resulted in such massive life of ages past because they were far higher:


Recently, we discovered fossilized raindrops show earth's atmosphere was much thicker as well.


I guess I'm a little skeptical given the growing evidence that earth's atmosphere was far different, that they can reasonably assume it was the same as today's prior to such catastrophes.

Why are they so convinced the atmospheric calibration is reliable?

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : adding more detail on quoted material

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 103 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:58 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 94 of 1486 (663705)
05-26-2012 6:42 AM

Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Furthermore, the theory of Uniformitarianism replaced the theory of Catastrophism, yet today we recognize Catastrophism was correct.


Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell. But Lyell recognized what would happen to his theory were Catastrophism shown correct, along with rapid speciation after catastrophes. He privately expressed concern to Darwin in 1844, stating:

"Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."

The fear Lyell expressed has been shown well-founded. Today we recognize mass catastrophes did occur. We also can see from the fossil record that it is not consistent with Gradualism, which led to Punctuated Equilibrium. Yet scientists want to pick and choose, assuming "the present is the key to the past" concerning isotopic decay, under the presumptions of Uniformitarianism - even though it failed to pass the tests of falsifiability, and the original theory of Catastrophism has shown itself correct.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 96 of 1486 (663718)
05-26-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:14 AM

Re: Gradualism
Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else?

It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big".

The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively.

The constancy of decay rates depends on the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, that slow, steady, and generally unaltered processes were at work. Scientists assume decay rates were constant for no other reason than that Uniformitarianism is their accepted theory. Is there any particularly good reason for it? Not really. We know isotopic decay rates can be altered, but Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" argues that such alterations are rare and minimal. But ultimately we just don't really know. We don't have a time machine.

And the more we find out, the more the fossil record disagrees with a Gradualistic, Uniformitarianistic view. Oxygen levels were far different. Catastrophes did occur. There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up. Plus the new recognition mass catastrophes did result in ancient mass extinctions increasingly raises the question of why those catastrophes didn't affect the amounts of the initial daughter isotopes, atmospheric isotope levels, or isotopic decay rates - WHICH ALL HAD TO REMAIN CONSTANT OR PREDICTABLE TO REACH RADIOMETRIC DATING RESULTS.

Everything for Evolutionary Theory is pretty much built like a stack of cards on the presumptions of radiometric dating by this point, which in turn is based on Gradualism and Uniformitarianism. And radiometric dating requires assuming that decay rates were unaltered or else predictably calibrated over millions and billions of years. If the system wasn't closed with isotope levels changing, if the isotope decay rates altered in speed, if the atmospheric isotope levels were different from today's, you would get the results thrown off. And a mass catastrophe involving intense water or volcanism could do that. Forces within the earth like heat or magnetism might as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:34 AM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:02 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 97 of 1486 (663720)
05-26-2012 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:14 AM

Re: Gradualism
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth", the section on Radiometric Dating, states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei. He assumes as such that the nuclei weren't substantially or commonly affected in decay over such long time spans as a result.

Trouble is, if the electron shield itself evolved, that whole theory goes right out the window. I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs. For me it remains a serious question mark as well though.

What really bugs me, frankly, is this is all being passed off as undeniable fact. Yet we still don't even know how radioactive decay works as a process, at least at the time of Dalrymple's book when he admitted it. There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public. The investigation is still very much underway to prove this, in other words, and here they are trying to shout down opposing views as ignorant, like it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can clearly see that's not the case at all.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:43 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 AM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:04 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 100 of 1486 (663725)
05-26-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:34 AM

Re: Gradualism
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant.

What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant?

"If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small".

A better quote would be, "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that SUVs are not big. You Evolutionists are assuming Evolutionary Rates could speed up under Punctuated Equilibrium, but don't want to accept that isotope decay rates could have sped up.

On the one hand you say the present is the key to the past and assume isotope decay rates were the same as today's. But on the other hand when today's rates are too fast to allow an ancient earth (which Microevolution rates are per here) you assume today's have sped up for some reason. And when the fossil record shows stasis and lack of transitions rather than gradual transitions, you assume evolution suddenly sped up in the past and didn't show up in the fossil record, per Punctuated Equilibrium.

You want to say one had to remain constant and say the other situations were variable, just whatever will make Evolutionary Theory work, in other words. To me it looks inconsistent.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:07 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:08 AM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:31 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 102 of 1486 (663729)
05-26-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coragyps
05-26-2012 7:49 AM

Re: Gradualism
Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway.

Where are our physicists?

Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" says the following on pg. 87:

"There are two basis reasons why significant changes in rates of decay are not expected. First, the nuclei of atoms are extremely small and well insulated by their cloud of orbiting electrons. These electrons not only separate nuclei sufficiently that they cannot interact, they also provide a 'shield' that prevents ordinary chemical or physical factors from affecting the nucleus. Chemical activity in an atom, for example, occurs almost entirely among the outermost electrons and does not involve the nucleus at all. Likewise the 'compressibility' of a substance may result in slight changes in the configuration of electrons but has no effect on the nucleus.

Second, the energies involved in nuclear changes are 10^6 times greater than those involved in chemical activity and 10^4 to 10^5 times greater than the energies that bind the electrons to the nucleus. Chemical forces, which bind atoms together into molecules, are on the order of 1 electron-volt (eV), while the forces required to remove an electron from an atom are typically in the range of 10 to 100 eV. In contrast, the forces that hold nuclei together are on the order of 10^6 eV, and those that hold quarks, the elementary constituents of protons and neutrons together are on the order of 10^6 eV (Weisskopf, 1983:474). This is the reason why nuclear reactors and powerful particle accelerators are required to penetrate and make changes in atomic nuclei. Except in nuclear reactions, such energies are generally unavailable in natural processes such as those that form, change, and destroy rocks on the Earth and in the Solar System."

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:09 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 109 of 1486 (663738)
05-26-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
05-26-2012 8:02 AM

Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Please don't go off topic with more extraneous distractions.

You need to show how this affects the correlations, otherwise all you are doing is throwing sand against the wall to see what sticks.

The constancy of Uniformitarianism is acknowledged here on this University of Tennessee page, and its presumptions as central to Dendrochronology:


Principles of Dendrochronology
The Uniformitarian Principle

This principle states that physical and biological processes that link current environmental processes with current patterns of tree growth must have been in operation in the past. In other words, "the present is the key to the past," originally stated by James Hutton in 1785. However, dendrochronology adds a new "twist" to this principle: "the past is the key to the future." In other words, by knowing environmental conditions that operated in the past (by analyzing such conditions in tree rings), we can better predict and/or manage such environmental conditions in the future. Hence, by knowing what the climate-tree growth relationship is in the 20th century, we can reconstruct climate from tree rings well before weather records were ever kept!

For example, the graph above shows a long-term precipitation reconstruction for northern New Mexico based on tree rings (click on the image to see an enlarged version of the graph). The reconstruction was developed by calibrating the widths of tree rings from the 1900s with rainfall records from the 1900s. Because we assume that conditions must have been similar in the past, we can then use the widths of tree rings as a proxy (or substitute) for actual rainfall amounts prior to the historical record.

However, the whole dating methodology revolves around the final sentence, the "assum[ption] that conditions must have been similar in the past".

As seen from the page, to definitely prove the method, you must first prove conclusively the assumptions upon which the method is based, namely:

(a) Rings had to have indicated one-year periods each time, and could not have grown faster.
(b) Trees can be effectively cross-matched.
(c) Trends regarding precipitation and other data are being effectively derived and not mistakenly assuming based on current circumstances.

Look, this has always struck me as a pretty esoteric, arcane attempt at fringe 'science' for which there's been a dearth of reliable information. Many of your early sources no longer work meaning I have to do entirely new searches to cross-check some of your points. And Evolution has a long history of selectively interpreting evidence to result in bias, like with Peking Man or Lucy (which we just recognized recently walked upright after all unlike the original press announcements).

For me to decide this is solid methodology I need to understand why they are so sure rings represented the exact amounts of times claimed. Is there a source for your claim that they represent just one year each? How can this be sure? So much seems likely to rest on this and the ability to cross-check reliably between trees. I understand the concept, look for evidence of droughts or fires that show up across multiple trees. But I'm also concerned a biased researcher could just selectively interpret two trees with different droughts as being cross-checked dishonestly. It could too easily be open to interpretation (like the fossil record or phylogenetic trees which are VERY speculative).

I'm used to seeing shoddy research from Evolutionists with 90% speculation to 10% fact and I'm not going to easily accept this situation is different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:56 AM Jzyehoshua has acknowledged this reply
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 10:26 AM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 12:25 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 114 of 1486 (663774)
05-26-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 8:08 AM

Re: Gradualism
That they don't change. And scientists from the Curies on have tried to get them to change --- they tried heating them, pressurizing them, combining them in different molecules and so forth; they didn't just assume that the rates were constant, they did everything they could think of to make 'em change. And short of throwing radioisotopes into a nuclear reactor or something, the decay rates do seem to be very stable.

Of course they change. Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" acknowledges they change. Volcanism and Beryllium both throw off decay rates. Dalrymple acknowledged they can change, just argued such changes are rare and minute. Lava from Mt. St. Helens for example was dated as hundreds of thousands of years old. Mt. Ngauruhoe's eruption resulted in dating results of 3.5 million years, and both were recent events. The ability for volcanic ash to throw off isotopic decay rates has long been a major point for Creationists:


Beryllium decay rates have been shown to alter specifically.


The argument that decay rates can't be altered at all though will prove indefensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:40 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:35 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 115 of 1486 (663775)
05-26-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tangle
05-26-2012 10:26 AM

Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Trees growing in climates with seasons - Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn - grow in the spring and are dormant in winter. It's quite easy to understand.

But your task here is not to nitpick methods but to explain why they all corroborate each other.

Doesn't that assume seasonal fluctuation consistent with today's? We now know earth was once far more tropical than it is today (source below) so why is it assumed tree rings grew at the same rates? This assumption the present is the key to the past, that we can simply assume the way it is is the way it always was, seems to me a very dangerous fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 10:26 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 6:05 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:09 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 119 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 6:14 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 116 of 1486 (663776)
05-26-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
05-26-2012 10:31 AM

Re: Decay constants
The RATE team, with over a million dollars of creationist money, set out to prove that decay constants weren't constant.
They failed.

Read a summary of the results below:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:

I'm always skeptical of a page that quotes a source and then doesn't give a citation link. I checked your ASA page and saw he was claiming the fission tracks in Zircons were acknowledged to show 500 million years worth of radioactive decay. So I hunted down the report for myself just now and double-checked. Turns out Mr. Randy Isaac took the quote entirely out of context when he said,

"The RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for “more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported."

Here are the ICR sources for the report itself:


The last is the report PDF including the quote itself. Here's the full quote, in context:

"Even so, in spite of this thermal annealing and resetting, there remains sufficient strong evidence to conclude that both the fission tracks and radioisotope ratios in the zircons in the Cambrian Grand Canyon tuff beds record more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay during deposition of the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region. Given the independent evidence that most of this strata sequence was deposited catastrophically during the year-long global Flood about 4500 years ago, then 500 million or more years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay had to have occurred during the Flood year about 4500 years ago. Thus, the fission tracks in the zircons in these tuffs are physical evidence of accelerated nuclear decay."

That's the complete opposite of what Randy Isaac said the report concluded. To me that looks pretty dishonest to misinterpret the report like that. You really should double-check these assertions from now on because that's a pretty good example of dishonest misinterpretation of a paper right there.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:31 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 6:15 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:26 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 6:36 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 124 of 1486 (663794)
05-26-2012 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
05-26-2012 6:05 PM

Re: Gradualism: not the topic
You're deflecting.

If you want to discuss tree rings start a new thread - your task here is to explain why all the different methods of dating agree with each other.

If they are ALL wrong, why do they agree? Is it a coincidence that all the dating methods are in error for diferent reasons but yet miraculously still agree with each other?

Thanks for pointing out I was getting off-topic. I should've read more carefully to recognize that was the main topic and not just the methods themselves, my apologies.

Concerning this point in particular though, first of all, do they really all agree with one another apart from indicating a minimum age to life on earth? And if not, then that just suggests scientists are trying to find any method they can to indicate an ancient date to life on earth. Brent Dalrymple points out a number of previous attempts that got debunked in "The Age of the Earth", the section on early attempts at dating the earth. They consistently failed because of (A) a belief in constancy per Uniformitarianism, and (B) inadequate consideration of all possible factors. Examples include De Maillet's theory on sea decline, Kelvin's theory on cooling of the earth and sun, and George Darwin's moon origin theory. It's online here starting at page 25:


Secondly, everything basically falls into 3 categories that I can see:

(1) Radiometric isotope dating (Message 11).
(2) Dendrochronology (Message 2, 3, 4, 5) and coral dating (Message 10).
(3) Depositional rates (Message 6, 7, 8, 9).

Why all 3 would be thrown off though is pretty easy to explain via a global Flood and previous canopy surrounding the earth, both of which are well-evidenced in the fossil record.

We know ancient life was simultaneously extinguished although scientists dislike considering a Flood was involved, and prefer to hypothesize about meteor impacts or underwater volcanoes. They assume multiple huge catastrophes like the Permian-Triassic extinction event, Devonian extinction, Ordovician-Silurian extinction, Cretaceous extinction event, Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and Pre-Cambrian mass extinction event.

We also know earth's atmosphere was once much thicker than it is today, and that oxygen levels were 50% higher resulting in huge insects in earth's past.

A Pre-Flood Canopy would result in higher oxygen levels and initial daughter isotope levels, affecting both radiometric dating and dendrochronology. The Flood itself should affect radiometric dating and depositional rates especially. As I pointed out in Message 93, there appears evidence that the sediment layers were not laid down over long periods but rather by a massive Flood at one point (Point 3, Message 6, 7, 8, 9). And such a Flood would alter isotope decay rates as well, especially if volcanic activity was involved. It would fossilize pretty much everything at once and lay down multiple layers of sediment in a short amount of time - layers scientists today assume were laid down gradually over long periods.

In summary, I think the combined explanation of a Pre-Flood Canopy coupled with a global Flood serves to explain why all 3 dating methods would be substantially altered to account for a recent date to life on earth.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 05-26-2012 6:05 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 7:18 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:54 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 126 of 1486 (663796)
05-26-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
05-26-2012 7:18 PM

Re: Gradualism: not the topic
The Biblical Flood has been totally and completely refuted as has any absurd vapor canopy. Either are simply non starters and covered in other threads.

They would be irrelevant in this thread even if they were true.

Well, the thread asked for an answer and that's the answer, both Biblically and as I see it from scientific evidence. If the thread wants to consider them inadequate so be it, but that appears the logical Biblical theory for why all 3 methods would be thrown off from a Creationist's standpoint - I doubt you'll hear any other theories.

It would explain why geologic layers worldwide were laid down rapidly at once and thus geologic dating was caused by a Flood at once. Ice cores were likely the end result of the Flood as well, and caused instantaneously rather than the result of slow, gradual processes.

It would explain why fossilization has occurred worldwide, an improbability given that depositional rates are too minimal to fossilize anything. You need to cover something very rapidly to prevent bacteria/scavengers and erosive forces from destroying it so it can be fossilized. It would explain why fossilized footprints exist in sandstone and even fossilized raindrops, showing the fossilization was instant.

It would explain the mixing of fossil deposits with animals and plants from all climate zones worldwide, a point made in 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity'. That's not something that makes sense under other theories but a global Flood.

It would explain stasis in the fossil record and lack of transitions that led to Punctuated Equilibrium being hypothesized.

It would explain why the human-apes theory has fallen apart over the past decade:

To me this appears a theory I can't easily debunk and to my mind is a better fit with all the evidence I see than Evolutionary Theory. To me it is more reasonable than Evolution from a logical standpoint since Evolution can't account for a number of otherwise puzzling factors.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 7:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 7:29 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 10:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Inactive Member

Message 128 of 1486 (663798)
05-26-2012 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
05-26-2012 7:29 PM

Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Too bad for you then that the Biblical Flood never happened.

So far as I'm concerned, Macroevolution never happened. It's a myth that was always pure speculation interpreted by the minds of some philosophers who labeled it science and instituted it in law before it was ever proven. They've been trying to persuade everyone their pet theory is science ever since then. Despite their best attempts 40-50% of Americans remain unconvinced over a century later.

I see better evidence for core created species than a common ancestor given the fossil record, sterility in interspeciary breeding, and rapid microevolutionary rates.

EDIT: I just saw your mention of the other thread and will take a look at it, thanks.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 7:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 7:46 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 5:15 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 131 of 1486 (663801)
05-26-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
05-26-2012 7:35 PM

Re: decay rate change and correlations
The argument that decay rates can be altered significantly will prove indefensible, and you are still left with the issue of correlations ... which you have not yet addressed.

When we look at the dendrochronologies and also compare the values of the 14C/12C ratios for the rings at different ages we see that all four dendrochronologies have the same 14C/12C ratios for the same ages and that these values show the characteristic exponential curve of radioactive decay.

You now have four dendrochronologies that agree with each other within 0.5% over 8,000 plus years AND you have them agree with each other on the 14C/12C ratios for all these ages AND you have the 14C/12C ratios correlate with the decay rate associated with 14C.

You have not yet proposed a single mechanism to cause one of these correlations.

Waving your hand and talking about hypothetical decay rate changes does not explain the correlations.

(1) I just explained in Message 124 how all your points fall into 3 categories, Dendrochronology, Radiometric Dating, and Depositional Rates, and are explainable through a Pre-Flood Canopy and Global Flood.
(2) Concerning the Dendrochronologies, the oldest tree we have dates under 5,000 years. And that's assuming rings were dated correctly at a year apiece. The cross-dating becomes speculative as it depends on their correct analysis of a pattern existing. According to your Message 2:

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

Obviously if they just pick and choose 2 similar rings for two 4,000 year old trees they can claim trees of similar ages show a 7,000 or 8,000 year history, even if the trees grew at approximately the same time. Their analysis needs to be double-checked to show the pattern was indeed reliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 8:17 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 10:10 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 133 of 1486 (663803)
05-26-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by RAZD
05-26-2012 7:49 PM

Re: Those dangerously consistent dendrochronology correlations ...
It assumes that the earths tilt and orbit produce seasons, just as they do today. Of course if you have a mechanism to alter the tilt and orbit without it showing up in the tree ring chronologies, then please provide your hypothesis and the evidence for it ... otherwise you are just throwing mud, not debating the scientific validity of the correlations.

You still haven't addressed my Message 124 which did provide the mechanism you and others wanted. I still see no reply to my explanation of why correlations would exist.

You have not explained the correlations between four independent dendrochronologies in different global locations, in different ecologies and in different species of trees ... a correlation within 0.5% for 8,000 plus years.

I just explained that in my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 10:23 PM Jzyehoshua 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