Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
26 online now:
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,160 Year: 4,272/6,534 Month: 486/900 Week: 10/182 Day: 10/28 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 87 of 1486 (662484)
05-16-2012 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-08-2007 9:23 PM


Re: reserved
I pretty much agree with the tree dating. except:
"This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead."
Who says that trees died in the flood? and 4004 BC is suspect! Are You suggesting that in 10,000 bc we had a ice age and the trees started growing after? Good theory. Because if you do not then it is hard to explain just why trees only have a shelf life of 12 to 4 thousand years. This is a range that vreationist suggest and is a very good point for them since clearly no tree is over 12,000 years. Any older is deemed not accurate.
I can ask why carbon dating is not used in all dating but I know. The same reason that yourr methods you do use have, it can not persisely predict over 100,000 years.
I qoute from your texts:
"assumptions made"
"measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample." theoretical age? my point
"No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact." How does radioactivity work? You know how it all works?
"for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time."
Why is this so?
"The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change." The past, modern past or acient? How do you know this happened and didnt happen in acient times? How do know todays constants were in acient times?
"The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects."
This states that your dating techniques are consistently off regardless which way. And why are they not correct anyway?
"False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results. "
And why is that?
Ill read further when these are answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2007 9:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 10:37 AM ScottyDouglas has taken no action
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2012 2:12 PM ScottyDouglas 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