Re: still creationist avoidance pattern rather than addressing correlations
quote:correlation -- n 1. a mutual or reciprocal relationship between two or more things 2. the act or process of correlating or the state of being correlated 3. statistics the extent of correspondence between the ordering of two variables. Correlation is positive or direct when two variables move in the same direction and negative or inverse when they move in opposite directions
What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age, climate and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?
All this means is that dendrochronologies are accurate for dating the last 8,000 years. This is a far cry from proving the earth is 4.56 billion years old.
Curiously, that is not the intent of this thread. The intent of this thread is to show the evidence that invalidates the concept of a young earth.
That all depends on what you mean by a young earth. If you mean 6000 years, then , yes, by all means, it does disprove that. I am not a 6000 year old earth YEC however. I am a young earther in the sense that I see no reason why the earth is older than 1 million years old. If you do not hold to the Ushher interpretation of biblical genealogies, 1 million years is not a contradiction to the genesis creation text.
Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.
steve carlip writes:
The supernova SN1987A was observed in 1987, when we saw a star ``explode'' about 170,000 light years from Earth. This distance is unambiguous---it can be obtained by trigonometry, with no assumptions except that Euclidean geometry is nearly right in and near our galaxy.
After the initial supernova, much of the energy produced by SN1987A came from the radioactive decays of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57. These decays can be identified because they emit gamma rays of very precise frequencies, which are easily detectable. We've looked at the decay rates, and they're exactly the same as the ones we observe in the laboratory. So there's been no change in at least the 170,000 years it took for the light to reach us.
Note that you don't have to assume a constant speed of light here---the supernova gives an independent check. That's because many of the features of a supernova, from the amount of energy and the number of neutrinos emitted to the spectral lines of the elements in the ``afterglow,'' depend sensitively on the speed of light. If, for example, the speed of light had been different when the supernova occurred, we wouldn't have seen the cobalt decays at all, since the frequency of the gamma rays emitted in the decay depends on the speed of light.
I use this example because it's relatively simple to understand. But there have been *lots* of other searches for changes in physical constants, using methods ranging from astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, to searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, to studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, to (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.
The result is a net of observations that fit together quite rigidly ---you can't tweak one without contradicting many others. For instance, if you suppose the speed of light varies, that affects spectral lines in distant stars. It affects different lines in different ways, and so would be easy to see. (That's what Webb et al. were looking for.) You can try to compensate by allowing the charge of the electron to vary in synch with the speed of light. But that requires that the charge of the proton must vary as well, since otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be neutral (which would have dramatic and easily observable effects). But if the charge of the proton varies, the rates of nuclear reactions will change, affecting the production of energy by stars in a way we don't see. You might then propose that the strength of the nuclear interaction could change exactly in synch with the speed of light and the charge of the electron and proton. But nuclear interactions affect neutrons as well, and again you'd end up with drastic changes in the behavior of stars that we would see (and don't). People have gone through this kind of argument carefully and quantitatively. It just doesn't work.
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change. I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.
RAZD this thread is a little over my head but I'll try to try and grasp it the best I can hopefully. What do you mean here? If there was a world wide flood are you saying it would wipe out all the correlations and start fresh? Let's say there was a flood anywhere at any point in time no matter how small, would we be able to correlate any thing in that area? By continuous you mean uninterrupted? How can you tell? I think you're saying tree rings (for example) were uninterrupted and continuous? What if those trees just survived the flood? How can you tell they didn't?
A worldwide flood that destroyed all life on the planet would rip the bristlecone pines out by their roots. Those trees would rot after floating in the water for almost a year. It would be impossible for one to stay intact after a year in the water and reattach itself to new soil and start growing again. I don't know of any plant that could stay drenched in the water for a year's time and not disintegrate into mush. There is an uninterrupted period of at least 8000 years of bristlecone pine evidence. If a worldwide flood had occurred in the last 8000 years, the bristlecone pine dendrochronology would only go back in time to the end of the flood. This means that if there was a worldwide flood, it had to have occurred prior to 8000 years ago.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I am saying that a global flood would rip up the bristlecone pines and have them floating for a year. Whether they rot or not is irrelevant. It would be impossible for them to start growing again once all the water dried up.