Age Correlations and an Old Earth

whatever has been chided for getting off topic on this thread for not dealing with the problem of correlations of all the age dating methods.while this information is good refutation of his post, it does not contribute to that matter of correlations, and continued discussion of it should be on a new topic (the validity of C14 dating?) if there isn't already an old one on it ... like:http://EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years -->EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years
http://EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation -->EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation
http://EvC Forum: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method? -->EvC Forum: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?thanks

so are a lot of things that are commonly regarded as vegetables
Tomato. Fruits Vegetables. Health, Diet Information.it's a member of the poisonous nightshade family too.
Nightshade Family Food Avoidance - Why it is Recommendedand it is the main ingredient in that famous school vegetableketchupstill doesn't change the argument, may even enhance it ... vine ripened lake varves anyone?

One of the things that happens in lava flows is that lumps of old rock get caught up in the flow and carried along. Someone looking to make a statement that dating does not work can look for these inclusions, take samples from them and have them dated by reputable labs, and voila: evidence of error!This is a creatortionista trick that has been used several times (flow into grand canyon is another one), and Plaisted is no more creditable than others, as his degree is computer science, not geology (the site is inside his personal user space on the UNC computer system and does not represent the views of the university - that they allow such to be posted is to their open minded credit).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I notice two other posts that confirm my first reply to this post -- the dating of inclusions and the relevance of Plaisted's geochronological information.I assume from your lack of response that you have none, and cannot refute the solid evidence in this topic for an old earth.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yeah, I should have made that "cannot at this time refute the solid evidence ..."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

bump for Willowtree

please read the first post on this forum about all the correlations and methods of verifying the ages measured.

This is exactly what the first post on this topic is about -- externally derived ages that correlate undeniably with the ages of the earth determined by scienctists.They show undeniable proof of an earth older than is possible under any YEC model for any rational person.Note that the topic is about CORRELATIONS not just hand picked results.How can you answer the correlations of age with the annual tree rings, the annual lake varves, the annual ice layers, the annual calcite layers -- each one correlating not just on age but on climate changes over those ages as well?enjoy

If you want to start a topic that is about your claim Please do so. I expect to see real evidence of a difference between people with and people without that can be measured and quantified (is there a specific christian 'god-sense' or one for each religion?)BARRING THAT, this is a discussion on the correlations between age dating methods that show the same patterns of age and climate from a variety of different sources and using methods that have undeniable annual processes, and which ALL show the same patterns and ALL show that the scientific age of the earth is on a solid foundation.Enjoy.

No I don't assume, I am stating a fact: the earth is older than any possilbe YEC model would allow. This is no different than stating that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is not the center of the solar system nor the universe. This is accepted fact by rational people.Now you are going to equivocate and say that you think the earth can be old but that dating methods that show the earth is old are not believable? How am I supposed to think you are credilble?Or is there part of YEC that you cannot get away from even though you claim a more liberal OEC view? Like a date for a flood?Again: the information in the original post is based on actual layer by layer annual systems that show a complete lineage back some 560,000 years without any massive interuption. So you don't read signature lines either. Or do you mean because I do not believe in your particular flavour of god? Are you sure you have the correct one being punished for lack of perception? One can only look at the reality of creation to understand the reality of creation.And for the record, I don't need evolution to disprove genesis (or creation for that manner). All I ask is that science be kept on a purely scientific basis as that is the only way to truth. Which page of what religious (or secular for that matter) text is felt to be challenged by the concept of evolution is irrelevant to me: what is relevant is the science, the methodology, the evidence, the rational theorizing of how A becomes B and the best explanation for "life, the universe, and, oh, everything" which is also known as 42 for those followers of another book ("Hitchhiker" by D. Adams).Age correlations show a consistent pattern of age and climate that matches what the various sciences have been saying.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

How does keeping science to scientific principles exclude "every" other avenue? Does keeping math so that 2 + 2 = 4 somehow make other truths less available?My belief is that what can be known can only be known by rational methods. That is the wrapping paper of Deism. There are other things that cannot be known, and for those things whether you keep to rational methods or not does not make knowledge any more or less accessible.The option is to believe every single other little dream myth and insane vision. Not a very viable plan.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

topic is age correlations not your problems with the world

So a bias that the correlation of actual factual annual layers on top of annual layers on top of annual layers with climate with various radiometric dating methods with orbital decay of the earth and slowing down of the rate of rotation such that each piece of information from such a wide variety of sources, methods and causes all come together showing a consistent pattern of age and methodological validity is okay?Just curious.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

evidence is not predictions.you are truly clutching at straws to discredit the data given, resorting to logically invalid arguments does not improve your position. I have no interest in "disproving" something I don't consider a source of valid information on the subject to begin with. Myths have some elements of truth to them - hence Troy was found based on information in the Greek Myths, but that does not render the whole of the myth absolutely true.My interest is saying: this is the evidence that the age of the earth vastly exceeds that of any YEC model, hence the YEC models are invalid. This does not invalidate other views based on other interpretations of the bible.This is also no different from the evidence of astronomy showing that the universe does not revolve around the earth or that the earth is not flat. Some people may still choose to believe these uncredible positions, but that does not make them rational or their beliefs true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As I said kernals of truth are likely in every myth, but those truths do not show the whole myth to be true: that would (of course) be a logical fallacy of the first order.Funny how those "myths of Darwinism" don't depend on historical stories for validation again and again by succeeding generations: that they can be (and are) derived independantly over and over. I know of no myth that is self regenerating. Yes -- to the extent that every single experience is ultimately subjective. To the extent that those experiences can be repeated with the same results, repeated by other people, and repeated at different times and in different places ... and all have the same results, then it amounts to the subjective experience that all rational people call objective. I use the definitions in common usage and from dictionaries, a fairly subjective set of rational criteria.What you need to look at is not that which is subjective or objective, but what is discarded as nonsense: the world view that needs to discard more information as nonsense in order to work is less likely to be true -- Occams sharp and persistent razor.I have more on this concept and can start another topic on it if you are interested -- THIS one is about dating CORRELATIONS and is wandering off topic with a steady drift towards ... nonsense? ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}