|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ScottyDouglas,
I missed your post while making mine (Message 88), but this is a good place to start.
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! Again, it helps if you use the quote boxes to clearly identify your points from the points you are replying to: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: Revising your comment to include boxes it looks like this:
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? ... Curiously, trees buried by water for over a year die. There is also the common condition of fallen wood drifting away on water, rather than remaining where they fell. Or are you invoking magic to keep them alive and all in the same place? remember that we are talking three different chronologies in three different places. If you are going to be skeptical of this, then the onus is on you to show how such objective evidence would survive and continue to grow unaffected (no aberrant tree ring, for instance) by a world flood.
... and 4004 BC is suspect! Of course it is -- every date provided by creationists is very suspect, and I have seen ages from 4k to 10k in different sources. Bishop Usher, though, is usually cited as an expert on these calculations (which are suspect because real dates are not identified anywhere I am aware of). But there comes a point where you run out of time for a Young Earth concept, and this is the starting point: we know from the objective empirical evidence of the tree rings and the correlation between independent tree chronologies.
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. Curiously, I am not suggesting any reason for the data to run back to those dates, just that the evidence takes me there.
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. Actually the practical limit for 14C dating is ~50,000 years, but we will come to that later.
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 We can come back to this when we get to 14C dating. For now I want you to concentrate on the tree ring chronologies in Message 88 I referred you to Message 2: Bristlecone Pines and Message 3: European Oaks to point out that there is a correlation between these three chronologies for climate and particular incidents and thus you need to explain why they result in the same dates to within 0.5% correlation. When we add Adding German Pines to the Mix we see that there is a fourth tree ring chronology:
quote: There is a closer correlation between the oak and the German pine chronologies than between the oak and the Bristlecone Pine, ie an error of less that 0.5%. What this shows is that the method of making dendrochronologies is validated and that the method, when properly used, is highly accurate. Thus we can have high confidence in a minimum age of the earth, and a period of time without a world wide flood that would disrupt the chronologies, of 12,410 years (5 years have passed since the thread was written). When do you start to become uncomfortable in extending the known age of the earth as shown by the evidence? Do you accept that the dendrochronologies are highly accurate AND that they show the earth is at least 12,410 years old? If not, then what is your explanation for the correlations? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : corrected number of chronologies involvedby 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dwise1
According to my earlier reading a couple decades ago, fluctuations in the strength of the geo-magnetic field also affect the production of C-14 in the atmosphere. A few thousand years ago, the field was weaker (contrary to another common creationist claim) so there was more C-14 being produced. This caused radio-carbon dates from that time to falsely appear younger ... Indeed, and this is clearly shown in the calibration curves, but there is another cycle that is of even more interest in terms of correlations:
quote: This results in a similar cycle pattern in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and is one of the reasons that C14 does not reach an equilibrium point in the atmosphere (another creationist pratt down the tubes ... ). You can see this pattern in the calibration curves, causing the fine saw-tooth pattern:
There are other known period cycles that also have a similar effect, but the point of interest for the correlations, is that this is like a ticking clock with a fixed period of each tick, and they continue throughout the whole curve. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Concerning the Dendrochronology (tree ring) references, doesn't that require atmospheric calibration? After all, tree rings can grow differently based on atmospheric content, so since we now know ancient earth's atmosphere was different, with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, how can we be sure oxygen levels at the time did not result for error?
Concerning Message 4, varves are said to represent millions of years, yet Josh McDowell and Don Stewart pointed out cases in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" where the evidence appears to indicate a much shorter time span. To quote from pg. 206 in the print version:
quote: Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science It's on pages 205-207 online here: http://joshmcdowellmedia.org/...ouldConsiderChristianity.pdf This, though, is one clear case I know of where varves are assumed to indicate vast time spans under Gradualistic assumptions, yet evidence clearly indicates they were instantly fossilized. Otherwise, the flesh outlines wouldn't be visible, they wouldn't have been fossilized at all (depositional rates would be far too slow), there would be a thicker layer of mud, and the fish would not be pressed flat as they are. Concerning the ice layers, they are trying to calibrate for atmospheric levels even though we now recognize oxygen levels resulted in such massive life of ages past because they were far higher: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...oxygen-animals-scienceMore Oxygen Could Make Giant Bugs | Live Science http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...730-giant-insects.html Recently, we discovered fossilized raindrops show earth's atmosphere was much thicker as well. Splat Science: Fossilized Raindrops Reveal Early Earth's Hazy Skies | Live Science I guess I'm a little skeptical given the growing evidence that earth's atmosphere was far different, that they can reasonably assume it was the same as today's prior to such catastrophes. Why are they so convinced the atmospheric calibration is reliable? Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : adding more detail on quoted material
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Furthermore, the theory of Uniformitarianism replaced the theory of Catastrophism, yet today we recognize Catastrophism was correct.
EvC Forum: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers? Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell. But Lyell recognized what would happen to his theory were Catastrophism shown correct, along with rapid speciation after catastrophes. He privately expressed concern to Darwin in 1844, stating:
quote: The fear Lyell expressed has been shown well-founded. Today we recognize mass catastrophes did occur. We also can see from the fossil record that it is not consistent with Gradualism, which led to Punctuated Equilibrium. Yet scientists want to pick and choose, assuming "the present is the key to the past" concerning isotopic decay, under the presumptions of Uniformitarianism - even though it failed to pass the tests of falsifiability, and the original theory of Catastrophism has shown itself correct. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else? It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big". The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively.
Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell. Don't be silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else? It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big". The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively. The constancy of decay rates depends on the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, that slow, steady, and generally unaltered processes were at work. Scientists assume decay rates were constant for no other reason than that Uniformitarianism is their accepted theory. Is there any particularly good reason for it? Not really. We know isotopic decay rates can be altered, but Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" argues that such alterations are rare and minimal. But ultimately we just don't really know. We don't have a time machine. And the more we find out, the more the fossil record disagrees with a Gradualistic, Uniformitarianistic view. Oxygen levels were far different. Catastrophes did occur. There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up. Plus the new recognition mass catastrophes did result in ancient mass extinctions increasingly raises the question of why those catastrophes didn't affect the amounts of the initial daughter isotopes, atmospheric isotope levels, or isotopic decay rates - WHICH ALL HAD TO REMAIN CONSTANT OR PREDICTABLE TO REACH RADIOMETRIC DATING RESULTS. Everything for Evolutionary Theory is pretty much built like a stack of cards on the presumptions of radiometric dating by this point, which in turn is based on Gradualism and Uniformitarianism. And radiometric dating requires assuming that decay rates were unaltered or else predictably calibrated over millions and billions of years. If the system wasn't closed with isotope levels changing, if the isotope decay rates altered in speed, if the atmospheric isotope levels were different from today's, you would get the results thrown off. And a mass catastrophe involving intense water or volcanism could do that. Forces within the earth like heat or magnetism might as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth", the section on Radiometric Dating, states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei. He assumes as such that the nuclei weren't substantially or commonly affected in decay over such long time spans as a result.
Trouble is, if the electron shield itself evolved, that whole theory goes right out the window. I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs. For me it remains a serious question mark as well though. What really bugs me, frankly, is this is all being passed off as undeniable fact. Yet we still don't even know how radioactive decay works as a process, at least at the time of Dalrymple's book when he admitted it. There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public. The investigation is still very much underway to prove this, in other words, and here they are trying to shout down opposing views as ignorant, like it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can clearly see that's not the case at all. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant.
You make a lot of stuff up, don't you? Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you recite stuff that other people have made up.
There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up. "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. Perhaps as a first step you could find out what that would actually entail. Would it involve electrons increasing in mass? In charge? What changes would have to take place to make the "electron shield" stronger?
I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs. Well yes. Random daydreams free of actual content and unsupported by evidence are of no significance.
There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating ... Speak for yourself.
... and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public. You should really stop making stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant. What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant?
"If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small". A better quote would be, "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that SUVs are not big. You Evolutionists are assuming Evolutionary Rates could speed up under Punctuated Equilibrium, but don't want to accept that isotope decay rates could have sped up. On the one hand you say the present is the key to the past and assume isotope decay rates were the same as today's. But on the other hand when today's rates are too fast to allow an ancient earth (which Microevolution rates are per here) you assume today's have sped up for some reason. And when the fossil record shows stasis and lack of transitions rather than gradual transitions, you assume evolution suddenly sped up in the past and didn't show up in the fossil record, per Punctuated Equilibrium. You want to say one had to remain constant and say the other situations were variable, just whatever will make Evolutionary Theory work, in other words. To me it looks inconsistent. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
[Dalrymple] states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei. Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway. Where are our physicists? Edited by Coragyps, : fix punctuation"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway. Where are our physicists? Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" says the following on pg. 87:
quote: Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua
Concerning the Dendrochronology (tree ring) references, doesn't that require atmospheric calibration? After all, tree rings can grow differently based on atmospheric content, so since we now know ancient earth's atmosphere was different, with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, how can we be sure oxygen levels at the time did not result for error? No calibration required -- the difference between winter and summer cause the annual rings, and the different atmospheric conditions show up as different width rings. This is how the rings are correlated with climate as well as age.
Concerning Message 4, varves are said to represent millions of years, yet Josh McDowell and Don Stewart pointed out cases in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" where the evidence appears to indicate a much shorter time span. To quote from pg. 206 in the print version: In other words you have not read the posts or respond to them, rather you bring in a different opinion. The issue is not whether you can challenge each type of evidence, but whether you can explain the correlations between them. If you can't explain the correlations then all your other issues are irrelevant.
Concerning the ice layers, they are trying to calibrate for atmospheric levels even though we now recognize oxygen levels resulted in such massive life of ages past because they were far higher: I guess I'm a little skeptical given the growing evidence that earth's atmosphere was far different, that they can reasonably assume it was the same as today's prior to such catastrophes. Where do you think that evidence comes from ... making stuff up, or by looking at actual data of oxygen levels compared to age in deposits such as the ice cores? Again the layers counted in the ice cores are based on winter vs summer deposits. The levels of oxygen in the layers provides evidence of correlations with other dating mechanisms. Your challenge is to explain the correlations. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Jzyehoshua
The constancy of decay rates depends on the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, ... Please don't go off topic with more extraneous distractions. You need to show how this affects the correlations, otherwise all you are doing is throwing sand against the wall to see what sticks. 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Jzyehoshua
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. .... And curiously this has nothing to do with the correlations in the dating in this thread. Perhaps you should try Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, as it seems you are unable to deal with the evidence for correlations here. Enjoyby 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