|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Edited by RAZD, : post added Edited by RAZD, : references Edited by RAZD, : deleted Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Edited by RAZD, : deleted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Edited by RAZD, : deleted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is from a creationist source:
Biblical Chronologist.org article: "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?" quote: It comes back to the internal correlations between the data contained within the tree rings. Thus we see that the methodology used by dendrochronologists is validated by the independent data from other dendrochronologies (consistent) and from 14C/12C content within the rings. Enjoy.References
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the 14C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVEquote: Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution: Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age. This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age. And from another source: http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf
quote: This independent study uses 14C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the 14C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and 14C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu gives me a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. The same 14C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments. Another consistent correlation with age as measured by the Lake Suigetsu varves. Enjoy.References
Edited by RAZD, : refs by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The last two posts have shown that there are internal correlations between three sets of data for tree rings and for the Lake Suigetsu varves, and now we look at information that demonstrates an internal correlation for radioactive decay and age:
Uranium Halos - evidence of an old earth Radiometric Dating (8)
quote: This is part of his response to the question of Polonium halos. NOTE: this is not a discussion about the validity of Polonium halos - anyone wanting to discuss those can go to polonium halos or to discuss how Uranium halos are formed - anyone wanting to discuss that can go to Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?. This is about the correlation between alpha energy, the radiohalo diamter and the decay rate of different isotopes. The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref):
M1 = M2 + mα + e/c²
Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle. This unique energy then determines how far (on average) an alpha particle will travel before it gets stopped and absorbed into the surrounding material (and causes the ring pattern to be visible) and the result is a halo or a number of halos around decaying inclusions that look like rings, but are actually spherical, and something like this:
The halos require more than one particle to form as each one only makes a point on the ring. Thus uranium, with it's long half-life, takes "several hundred million years to form." Now the fun part: this is based on our knowledge of physics and the physical constants that tell us how things behave in the universe, so what happens if you have fast decay instead of old time?
The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission (2)
quote: This is why we have alpha particles instead of free protons being ejected. If you change the forces involved then you change this balance, changing the radiation effect.
Alpha Binding Energy (3)
quote: I envisage it as a pyramid with each particle in contact with the other, and therefore bound by the strong force. Again, decrease the forces to cause faster decay and you break down the alpha particle. From Alpha Barrier Penetration (4)
quote: Alpha Tunneling Model (5)
quote: Change the decay rate, and you change the energy of the alpha particle.
Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification (1)
quote:(bold for empHASis) So what is that relationship?
PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.1 Q-value and the Conditions for Radioactive Decay (6)
quote: Multiply by c² and the difference between the two sides of the inequality is the Q-value:
Qα = EB(Z,A) - Eα(Z-2,A-4) - Eα(2,4) With Z = number of neutrons and A = number of protons & neutron, and where Z'=2 and A'=4 for an alpha particle. This equation is the same as the one we started with, rearranged and using different symbology:
M1 = M2 + mα + e/c² or e/c² = M1 - M2 - mα and eα = M1c² - M2c² - mαc² PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.4 Alpha Decay (7)
quote: Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes. There should be no characteristic uranium halos with the unique energy of uranium alpha decay from fast decay. The existence of (common) uranium halos then is evidence that shows the physical constants have not changed while they were formed, and their formation in turn is evidence that the earth is old, at least several hundred million years old. Another internally consistent correlation that shows the earth is indeed old. Enjoy.Reference
Edited by RAZD, : added refs, some info Edited by RAZD, : ) not Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is great stuff, and the significant part for this thread is the correlation of the reactions timing to the environment, thus validating the age at which sufficient free oxygen was available:
The granite layers are tilted at about 45 degrees and this led to a build up of rainwater and soluble uranium oxide deep underground at the bottom of the slope. The oxidizing environment needed to create the water required to concentrate the Uranium was brought about by a significant change in the earth's biosphere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- About two billion years ago a change of atmosphere occured, brought about by the evolution of blue-green algae, the first organisms able to carry out photosynthesis. Their activity increased the oxygen content of the water and allowed some of the Uranium to change into soluble oxides. This change in the environment also shows up in other ways - the existence of oxidized iron bands, for example. More about the Oklo Reactors can be found here:http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/ (use the sidebar links for more) Enjoy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took a bunch of "-" out of quote box to restore page width to normal. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just a reminder folks, the focus of this thread is on the correlations that confirm and validate all the various dating methods.
The vapor canopy is not the topic (I think we must have several on it already - an open one is Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep) The claim that there is more and more evidence for a young earth is a problem of logic and the completeness of explanations. It is easy to find evidence of young parts of an old world -- anyone watching lava flow is seeing the production of new rock formations that will date young, too young to measure with radiometric methods. The problem for young earthers is NOT that there is no evidence of young elements in an old earth, but that it is impossible to explain the elements of an OLD earth with a young earth scenario. These elements exist in great numbers - a few of them are showcased on this thread, because not only are they evidence of an old earth, but they do not rely on radiometric methods, but on systems as simple as counting layers. But they are also showcased because they show other evidence of the past and each method correlates in multiple ways, not just on age. We see (have seen and will continue to see) people throwing out ad hoc conjectures for ways to explain how the ages can be measured incorrectly, but not one person has been able to explain a single correlation between different age measurement mechanisms. It is these correlations that defeat the ad hoc conjectures. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Any old time you want to deal with the real age of the earth, Archangel, you can start here: Message 1.
Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 153 Geology- working up from basic principles.:
quote:So in this one case we have ... a cyclic pattern matching the solar cycle. The latter being of interest in terms of correlations of age dating systems (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1). The long term seasonal variations could be another correlation to add to that thread (although I may need to use other "rhythmites" with strong seasonal evidence, such as pollen. Rhythmite - Wikipedia
quote: What further piqued my interest was this tidbit found during googling on the Green River Varves: Page not found - American Atheists
quote: If we can correlate the 11-year sunspot cycle with these Swiss annual varves and show that they match the same cycle in the tree rings for those 9,500 yr BP, it adds one more correlation, and provides a good introduction to varves and a transition to the Lake Suigetsu varves. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Brad H, you asked for a special post just for you:
What exactly is ID?, Message 1016: Thanks Razd. I'll check it out. I'll wait to see your post there addressed to me and then I will respond. ... so here it is -- read the following:
Message 1: We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. ... That would be you, so I started this whole thread special just for you, anticipating your request by several years.
Message 1: ... The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms. To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be. The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results. So you can start with Message 2 and the annual tree rings in Bristlecone Pines. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Brad, thanks for your first attempt.
Just to be sure that you know where I am coming from, ... And likewise In many cases it was necessary to create structures that have the "appearance" of age, for practical reasons. I stress this because some try to say that this then means that the Creator was being deceitful. No He was not being deceitful, He was being practical. My point is that things such as your tree rings are not a good gage to go by if the trees were created adults. Which not only were "created adult," but complete with the correlations with seasons that supposedly never existed, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"? Which were not only created adult, but complete with 14C/12C ratios different with each tree ring consistent with the age derived from counting the rings, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"? And which had the correlations in 14C/12C ratios to climate that just happen to match those seasons in the tree rings that supposedly never existed, ... can you tell me how that is "practical"? Your task is to explain the correlations, not why tree rings exist, and creating an old earth does not do this.
Some will protest that this is like invoking "Last Thursday-ism." Well one thing is sure, what you have done is (a) invoked magic instead of science, (b) portrayed your god as a trickster\prankster, and most telling, (c) essentially admitted that you have zero scientific reason for the tree rings and the correlations. We can now laugh when you say there are "problems" with dating, as we know that your problems are hypothetical and based on hypothetical magic rather than facts and science. You'll just keep making stuff up to explain things rather than rely on reality.
Some will protest that this is like invoking "Last Thursday-ism." Which is the claim that if God created certain features to "look old," then who's to say that God did not just create everything last Thursday, complete with vivid past childhood memories and all? Well in answer to that I reply, yes that is exactly what this is LIKE. ... What you have is a system that works for any fantasy, no matter how bizarre and deluded. Curiously I like to believe in things based on facts and evidence that anyone can check by the methods of science. Myself, I like the view that god wrote the universe for us to understand. This has the advantage of all the evidence pointing towards the truth, rather than a fantasy world that each person can make up to suit themselves.
... Now let me pause and make something else very clear. I am not saying that tree rings and star light and other processes that some use as age clues wouldn't help support an old Earth scenario if all the other more internal processes actually agreed with them. ... Such as the correlations already mentioned, and which you have so far failed to address.
... But there are many clues that tell a very different story, and there are also some big glaring problems with a lot of the processes often touted to be evidence of an old Earth. Now, I predict, we get to a series of common creationist PRATTs about various dating "problems" while ignoring the issue of correlations.
Example, you mentioned the varves of the lake in Japan,Lake Suigetsu. But there are 5 big issues that cast serious doubts on this "age evidence." First, Glacial Geologist Dr. Quigley seems to think that the so called varves are actually only multiple turbite sequences that have nothing at all to do with seasonal controls. ... That's the kind of false information you get from people that lie to you. Please note that he is not talking about the kinds of varves in Lake Suigetsu, so you are a victim of the bait and switch lie. The varves in Lake Suigetsu are formed by alternating layers of diatoms and clay, material that settle at markedly different rates in water. Second, do a little experiment: get some diatomaceous earth from your local gardening store -- this will be full of diatom shells; mix this with clay, shake and let settle. Do any kind of shaking and swirling you like, and let settle. See if you can make alternating layers of clay and diatom shells. Have fun.
Second, Further studies of a third sister lake revealed that the original "seasonal" driven interpretations of the layers was wrong. Note that "Third Sister Lake" is the name of the lake, it is not a sister lake to Lake Suigetsu. Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake
quote: Variations in band thickness from 0.2 to 5 cm suggested that the time between depositional events was variable. (p. 445) Which, curiously, does not occur in Lake Suigetsu. You can download the PDF of the article from the above site, and reading it is instructive.
quote: Recent bands are not annual, because they are due to disruption of the watershed, and the article only addresses the recent layers (1 to 28 in an 80.5 cm core). Note that all these layers are post 1931 and thus do not, cannot, address whether the original 1931 study showed annual layers or not. These apples ain't oranges.
Thirdly, in the two key papers that use the "varves" to date a 40,000 year chronology, one starts at 1664 or earlier, and the other in 1729. Which calls into question, If the laminations are annual, then why are they no longer still forming? Which does nothing of the sort, as it is just an argument from incredulity, as well as another misrepresentation. From reading the articles on Lake Suigetsu the top layers are not counted as they appear to be disturbed. This results in a "hanging chronology" (unlike the fixed chronology of the tree rings), but one that still shows thousands of annual layers. The problem for you is three-fold: (1) that there are over 29,100 distinct layers, (2) that these layers are externally correlated with 14C/12C ratios in the tree ring data, and (3) that the annual layers are internally correlated with 14C/12C ratios. You are once again forgetting the issue of correlations: in this case the correlations to the 14C/12C ratio in organic material buried with the varves. Let me put this in perspective for you:
Message 21: Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the 14C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVEquote: Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution: Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age. This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age. Your task is not to present made up reasons for the varves to be something else, but to explain the correlations.
Thirdly, in the two key papers that use the "varves" to date a 40,000 year chronology, one starts at 1664 or earlier, and the other in 1729. Which calls into question, If the laminations are annual, then why are they no longer still forming? The laminations also show climate information (as seen above with the large climate change at about 11,000) which match the climate found in the tree rings, and the 14C/12C ratio in the layers of the lake match those in the tree rings for their period of overlap
Likewise are similar problems with many of your old Earth date scenarios, but the key I should point out is that many are making big assumptions from the start. ... Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty measurements? Now that you have played your PRATT card, how about you deal with the correlations?
I mentioned above, other processes that tell us a different story ... Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds. I have, it is another creationist PRATT. Same for coal and seals and all the others. And curiously, this doesn't explain the correlations between tree ring layers and 14C nor between lake varves and 14C. Your problem is not to make 14C wrong, or tree rings wrong, or lake varves wrong, but to be precisely wrong in exactly the same degree at every year.
Or consider human development. ... what you would expect if we had only been around for 10 thousand years as the Bible says. Off topic argument from incredulity and ignorance. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Now consider simple population growth rates. ... growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. ... then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Also consider how helium amounts ... An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust. Off topic PRATT. Start a thread on this or post it to PRATT Party and Free for All. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Please, no Gish Gallops, no PRATTs, and no diversions away from the topic at hand. You need to explain the correlations between the dates and why the different methods consistently validate each other, not just for age but for climate and other events. You have failed to even begin to address the correlations. All you have done is suggest that your god magically makes the world appear different from what you believe it should be, and throw out the usual PRATTS about dating techniques. You have failed in your first attempt to address the issue. I suggest in your second attempt that you refrain from posting a lot of extraneous garbage, pick one specific point and address the correlations related to that specific point. Enjoy.
Message 36: Wow you guys really split hairs on this forum don't you? Yes, it's called focus on the topic at hand.
I was already asked to come to this thread from another thread because the topic of the age of the Earth came up. Razd wanted me to come here and ... Explain the correlations between the various dating mechanisms.
Message 38: I'm on my cell right now but if you like, later I'll cite links 2 back up what I said. Razd invited me 2 share my "wrench" that destroys OE ideas. That will be interesting to see, as what I have said is that you need to confront the evidence for an old earth, and explain the correlations that validate old age:
What exactly is ID?Message 1035: Issue #1: Age See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for starters. Note that the issue is not just the various methods for counting the miimum ages by various means, but the correlations between them.
Thanks Razd. I'll check it out. I'll wait to see your post there addressed to me and then I will respond.
And once again I direct you to see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, as I have several times already (including one most recently in Message 1010 in answer to your request. It is rather dishonest in my opinion to keep making comments like this and not dealing with the age issue first.
But Razd, I am only just now in this message responding to Message 1010. So isn't it just a little bit unfair for you to call me dishonest? I said (in this message) that I was waiting for you to address me on that other site, and you haven't yet, so are you being dishonest? Why haven't you done so? First off, you should not need me to post specifically to you as the entire thread was written for you (and other creationists that complain about the age of the earth not matching what they want it to be). This is just conflict avoidance behavior. Second, your post Message 1003 was not the first time you mentioned the issue of age in this forum. Edited by RAZD, : added we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote and Manifest,
Please note that this thread not only provides correlations for 14C dating but several other methods as well. I invite Manifest to read the thread and see if he can figure out how all these methods can be wrong but come up with the same results. It's the correlations that are the issue, rather than any one particular system. In the case of 14C there are correlations with tree rings and with annual lake varves and with climate and event markers in each of these systems. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray RyanVanGo.
I need an answerMessage 1: I have simplified the 2 sides down to this: Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it. Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation. so the creationism theory says "Evolution isn't all correct, so it must be this" without giving me as much proof as evolution has. please someone show me the proof. ... ... Instead i need to see proof that the earth WAS formed 10000 years ago, and not only that, but that God is the one who formed it, with his hands, in 6 days. WITHOUT saying that our theories are wrong, but proposing new ones. ... Sad to say, I don't think you will find evidence for this, and the reasons are many: all the evidence that points to the earth being billions of years old. See the posts in this thread detailing not just the evidence for an earth significantly older than 10,000 years, but the correlations between the methods that validate each other, because there is no reason for these correlations ... without age.
Let me put it this way (while watching a documentary by Kent Hovind). Kent Hovind is not a reliabe source of information. For instance his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed is contradicted by his argument about how the Grand Canyon was formed. I can provide details, but that should be on another thread. This thread is about how various different counting methods show that the earth is significantly older than 10,000 years, and that the correlations between all these methods is explained by an old earth. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The thread Evidence for a recent flood has recently reached summation mode, and I am bringing it up here as this thread contains evidence that refutes a recent flood, or any world wide flood within the time frame of the evidence herein presented. See Message 1 for that information.
Evidence for a recent flood&Message 351 Taq: If you did the same with diatoms, fine clay, and leaf debris from the last 10,000 years would this process create 150,000 alternating layers of diatoms and clay particles where the leaf debris is sorted by tiny differences in carbon 14? Portillo had raised the question of using a blender to recreate sediment layers. The problem with this "experiment" is that it will only create layers sorted by sedimentation rates, not alternating layers with short and long sedimentation rates. The clay suspended in the water flowing into lake Suigetsu takes a long time to settle out and this occurs continuously, through the summer and winter; the diatoms on the other hand settle out very fast by comparison, but the shells are only produced during the summer growth blooms and only fall to the bottom when they die in the fall. This results in layers of only clay alternating with layers of mostly diatom mixed with some clay. See Message 5 and Message 21 for more information. However, the major problem for creationists to explain is not how each of the various age measuring systems could have individually malfunctioned in some way, but why they correlate with dates and events across the methods. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024