A simple question for a complex issue

The Pleistocene extinctions (plural) do not and cannot have any relevance to a supposed global flood. They occurred over too long a period of time, at too many different times, too long ago, and affected far too few species.Can redwoods date the Flood? No. The "evidence" proffered is simply wishful thinking.As for Humphreys and the RATE group, they're very confused and (it goes without saying) wrong. I know you won't read or understand the refutations, but for the benefit of others What about Humphreys excess helium arguments and Re: AiG thinks it has a dating "bombshell", and Re: helium in zircons means young earth?.

There are no problems with C-14 dating of the Pleistocene.The redwoods do not give the age of the Flood. Bristlecone pines (Prometheus and Methuselah and maybe others), creosote bushes (King Clone), King's Holly in Tasmania, Box Hucklebery in Pennsylvania, and Mongarlowe Mallee in Australia are all older than the redwoods (up to 40,000-odd years old); why try to date the flood by the redwoods and not these plants? Answer: the redwoods give the answer that fits the questioner's preconceptions, so they ignore the other evidence.See Oldest Living Thing(There's a fungus somewhere in the Pacific Northwest that is incredibly old, I don't have a reference offhand). I find it amusing that you are SO ignorant that you don't even know that Russell Humphreys is one person whose name ends in s. Of course you do see other nuclear physicists and geologists disputing his claims, as in the links that I posted. And no matter who performed the analyses, it's Humphreys that is trying to force the results to fit his preconceptions, and doing a poor job of it.

Use HTML, which this board allows but few others do.e=mc{sup}2{/sup}, replacing { with < and } with >, is displayed as e=mc².

That's not an explanation. That's at best a hypothesis, not useful until supported by evidence. Exactly which rings does he think are multiples, and what characteristics of those rings leads him to pick them as multiples? What about the 4,950 year old bristlecone (Prometheus)? How do its rings compare with Methusaleh's (the 4,723 year old pine)?I notice you have ignored the 11,000 year old creosote bush; the 43,000 year old King's Holly in Tasmania; the 13,000 year old Box Hucklebery in Pennsylvania, and the 13,000 year old Mongarlowe Mallee in Australia.

You may be right; but IMHO dumber than a brick is very slightly more likely.

Thanks. I guarantee I have no chance of remembering that for any noticeable length of time. If it were on the UBB and HTM code help pages I might have a chance of finding it when I need it.

I think you will find that our friend Mr. whatever responds to very very few questions and challenges, does not change anything that he says as the result of discussion, repeatedly posts the same gobbledygook of an apparently random assemblage of scientific terms, and doesn't appear to understand anything that is written, be it by himself or others.If you are feeling masochistic, read http://EvC Forum: How, exactly, is dating done? -->EvC Forum: How, exactly, is dating done? and the following messages. Many of the phrases used in this thread show up there, and nobody could figure out what they meant in that thread either.

Er, they're not purely creationist terms. From Darwin's Precursors and Influences: A glossary of historical terms in evolutionary theory:"Macroevolution
A term introduced by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937, referring to evolution at levels higher than the populational. His view was that evolutionary change at the level of speciation and above. Recently, the term has been used simply to refer to large scale change, mostly at the superspecies level, eg, by Niles Eldredge. ...Microevolution
A term referring to evolutionary changes beneath the level of the species. It includes, but is not limited to, adaptation to local environments. See also macroevolution."I can't resist posting Sverker Johansson's sig from talk.origins:"Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt."

Ah, but see the second set of defintions I posted.As you know, creationists are not bound by the fetters of rationality.

I know it's hopeless ... Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Exactly the opposite of the truth. Because the Sun is producing energy by nuclear means, and because we can detect and measure the precursors and products of those means, it's very easy to prove how young or old the Sun is. It's around 4.5 billion years old.

I said "around 4.5 billion", and I can twist "around" to mean just about anything. {grin}But we have numerical models (several different ones) of how stars work, and a lot of data to put into the models, and guess what ... they all agree that the Sun is pretty close to 4.5-4.6 billion years old.Of course, the measured data tells us, without any calculations, that a 12,000 year old Sun is right out unless some supernatural being created it with an artificial appearance of age.From The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities: Status of the standard solar model today:

quote:

---

The sun is a huge sphere of ionized gas, mostly hydrogen and helium, with a percent or so of all other elements together mixed in. What is directly observable are the surface conditions, and the total mass and luminosity. These observables, together with the assumption that physics as we know it applies also in the interior, are sufficient to calculate in considerable detail what goes on inside the sun as well. It is not necessary to make any specific assumptions about either the sun's age, or its energy source. ...

​

Solving this system of four differential equations gives the internal state of the sun (or any other star) in terms of pressure, temperature and density, using standard laboratory physics, assuming only that it is shining in a steady state.

​

Going to the next step, with a full-blown stellar-development numerical model, will give additional information concerning the age and composition and internal processes of the star. A very similar set of equations are used, with equilibrium conditions relaxed, and the star is followed through its development from birth to the present day (or further, if so desired), taking into account all known processes and energy sources that may be operative. The Helmholtz contraction energy is taken into account, as are the various possible nuclear processes, whenever the conditions are right for them. ...

​

This process can be used to calculate the age of a star. In the sun's case the result conforms nicely to expectations from radioactive dating of the rest of the solar system (around 4.55 billions of years (Strahler 1987), leading to a predicted age of the sun of 4.563 — 4.576 billions of years (Wasserburg 1995)). Guenther & Demarque (1997) find 4.5 0.1 billions of years for the age of the sun, whereas Brun & Turck-Chieze & Morel (1998) favor an age closer to 4.6 billions of years, as do Dziembowski et al (1998). All three results are nicely consistent with the predictions from standard theories of solar system formation. For other stars the results are less precise, which is natural given our limited knowledge of them; a few examples, together with a description of the dating process, can be found in Ford & Rasio (1998).

---

You have made a lot of claims. You have not presented any coherent arguments for or explanations of those claims, you have not presented any EVIDENCE for your claims, and you have not responded to questions and requests for clarification and discussions of those claims. It appears that all you've got is your wish that it be so. Well, reality does not respond to your wishes. Your premise is wrong. We are not so midtaken about the ages of the sediemnts. Your wish that we be wrong is irrelevant.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-19-2004]

Kinda like watching a train wreck.