|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 175, Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.: Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago. So I'm replying here as this would be off topic on Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago. So the evidence of life from trees living 12,405 years ago is explained how? See Message 4 of this thread. and the evidence of organic debris from Lake Suigetsu sediments from 35,987 years ago is explained how? See Message 5 of this thread. Note that there is consilience of data between the trees and the lake varve data that also needs to be explained: why do the tree rings and the lake varves have the same %14C content for layers of the same age? Inquiring minds want to know. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The age of the earth is a challenge to some sects of Christianity, just as the belief in an earth centered universe was in the times of Galileo. Christianity has (mostly) adapted. It will do the same for the age of the earth, and YEC will become marginalized and mocked the way flat-earthers are.
SO start at Message 1 and see how far you get. I'll be happy to accommodate you in your search for truth. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and this is about age correlations how?
Thanks for your comments clarifying your position, but let's concentrate on the topic or post elsewhere. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date? Arguments against the evidence I present here? Okay: ineffectual and incomplete, none explain the correlations. Please start with Message 2, Bristlecone Pines, and see what you can accomplish.
quote: Note there were also pieces of dead wood used in the chronology that were found lying on the ground, wood that should have floated off in a flood. Note there is no correlation here yet, this is the first set of data showing an earth older that YEC claims. The correlation start with the next post Message 3. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : wood that would float ... Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : linkby 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why would they all be dead if they were covered with water they don't have the breath of life in them? Just wondering. Trees breath, they take in C02 and exhale oxygen, and most trees drown if covered by flood water for 100+ days. Flood tolerant trees can be found growing on floodplains, but they have leaves above those periodic floods that create the floodplains, and are only tolerant for water over the roots. See willows. Bristlecone Pines are not flood tolerant.
Message 495: Is there any spot on earth that has not been covered with water at one time? This is an issue for another thread: see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? See Message 189 where I've copied\moved this discussion for further discussion. This thread is about discussing the methods used to measure age, any perceived problems with them, and with the correlations between the methods. With Message 3 you are running into the first correlation, the one between the Bristlecone Pines and the European Oaks, correlations such as the 14C/12C levels being the same in the tree rings for the same year count for two different dendrochronologies from opposite sides of the earth, one pines high on a mountain and one oaks living on floodplains. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : moved to another threadby 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date? In Message 496 I gave you a brief summary for the Bristlecone Pine data from Message 2. Here is the same summary for European Oaks from Message 3:
quote: So we have three dendrochronologies that agree within 0.5% after 8,000 years of tree rings. How is such accuracy obtained if there are any problems with the dendrochronology process? Note that the dendrochronologies were matched not just on climate data (ring widths) but on the level of 14C/12 existing in the rings (not "14C Age"). This correlation is discussed in greater detail in Message 4: Adding German Pines to the Mix. I'll have more to add when we get to that, as there is an update to the data that extends it. You may also want to read Message 20 and Message 109 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thank you CRR for another example of creationist deceit.
This is one large cut and paste and not your words, right? I'll forgive you for thinking this is a good piece of information ... it isn't.
Trees in such stressed conditions are known to form additional rings. Sometimes these can be identified as such but where rings are thin, as in these BCPs , they are often indistinguishable from annual rings. Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring. They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer. "Common in many species ... They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, ..." ... meaning that they were able to discern multiple rings in other species. With the techniques used by dendrochronologists to remove potential errors. Using trees susceptible to multiple rings. In 2007 I dealt with a similar paper by Don Batten, see Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud.
So although some researchers do consider each ring as an annual ring there is good evidence for a significant number as being false rings. Biblical dating would put the flood at ~2349BC., or ~4350 before present. 11% false rings would put the age as less than the time to the flood. 25% would put starting date after the post flood ice age. If Glock et al. are correct in their estimates of the frequencey of false rings the trees could be much younger. Someone is lying to you, either Glock or (more likely) someone misrepresenting him. How do I know? Because there is more actual data that validates the Bristlecone Pine ages. See the new version of this thread, currently in development, The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1), and Dendrochronology Basics, Message 9:
quote: In The Bristlecone Pine Chronologies, Message 10, there is some updated information:
quote: Do you understand what this means regarding your paper? They say:
Researchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP trees, where growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the soil thins and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most rings are found. It seems more probable that all the trees in the stand are about the same age, but that the trees growing at the margins are starved for water and grow multiple rings to conserve water. So the pattern with extra rings they propose should result in no consistent match between the two chronologies because they grew in different areas and should have been affected differently -- by their own words. I think that should be enough to put "bogus" on your article, but there is more:
quote: And I'm not done yet ... Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events, Message 16 in the new thread version:
quote: Note that is 100% accurate at 200 years, 200 years with no "Glock effect" showing up. But your biggest challenge will come after you deal with the oak chronologies, Message 3 on this thread and Message 13 through Message 16 on the new thread. At that point the relevance of Glock's paper will be moot. Again the issue is not the particular accuracy of the particular method or set of evidence, but the correlations between different sets of data and different methods that are consilient -- why do they get the same results? You've got some reading to do. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : correlationsby 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I do not have a copy. I can tell from the title that it may not be relevant to bristlecone pine dendrochronology. Do you understand why? Might be interesting to check it out at the library, rather than spending money on it. I live in a small town but the libraries are linked throughout the state and you can get books from any of them.
However, I'm pretty sure that Glock is a legit mainstream scientist. Your spin on the data comes from the site that quoted him. That is why we do not trust secondary sources. By the time we get through with the European Oaks (Message 3) the issue of multiple rings in Bristlecone Pines will be moot -- they show that the Bristlecone Pines must be missing rings because they are ~37 years shy at 8000 years of common data. That's a 0.5% error and the other way from their proposed/assumed/wished 11% error (that was calculated to fit made up "biblical times"). Also see Message 503, and as always ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date? You might also want to check out old Great Debates on this topic:
Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD onlyGreat debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD Both discontinued by other participant dropping out 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours. Have you tried the library?
Top Customer Reviews 4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound! This is what I mean by deceit ... he doesn't mention missing rings, he doesn't say anything about the techniques used that identify missing and false rings, and he doesn't make any effort to show that those "circumstances" apply to the trees in question. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback — 1960 by Waldo S Glock (Author) Amazon.com Top Customer Reviews4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound! [edit] So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours. So, if for the sake of the argument I let you have some chance of multiple rings muddying the chronology of the Bristlecone pines, then what can you say about the oak chronologies in Message 3:
quote: Do you have a source that says oaks are prone to multiple layers? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 40 marc9000 whines to admin that suggesting he doesn't debate things like the age of the earth was off topic ... in order to avoid answering the question.
Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth? I won't hold my breath. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating.
Some notable creationists like Ken Ham ... ... lie through their teeth and make their living off scamming the gullible.
... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't. Actually there were a lot Christian geologists looking for evidence of the purported flood and came to the conclusion that the earth was older than a few thousand years, but regardless the estimates for an age in the billions of years predates Darwin's trip to the Galapagos on the HMS Beagle:
quote: This claim about the age of the earth being made old to accommodate Darwinism is just more typical Creationist non-science crapola. Your opportunity to admit error.
We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions. And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it. Just as science is doing a very good job of rearranging our understanding of how the universe works, how the climate works, how the effects of us doing things like burning fossil fuels at such an extraordinary pace that it changes the climate will be felt for decades and getting worse (for humans) than it already has. Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger.
If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ... Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand.
... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists ... ... over a thousand years by science minded individuals and groups looking for the reality through the use of objective empirical evidence and the testing of theories developed to explain the reality they observe. The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality.
I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
After I address a few dates from your link;
quote: Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book. Rather it had been building for a while, as people were discovering that the Christian religious concept was increasingly unworkable (same wiki article):
quote: Bold for emphasis. That wasn't Darwin, that was the increase in knowledge as scientific methods were beginning to be used. More:
quote: Bold again for emphasis. Still before Darwin. It wasn't "Darwinism" ... it was the pursuit of facts and reality by the scientific methods. Still more:
quote: So you have it backwards, in typical creationist misinformed fashion. The discoveries in geology drove Darwin's thinking, not the other way around. The concept of the age of the earth in Darwin's time was plenty long enough for evolution to work. The ensuing updates were not necessary. They continued, not to validate Darwin's theory but to find the answers to the question of the actual age of the earth.
You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion. If it makes you happy to believe this, then wrap yourself up in it. You were the one dodging and dragging the thread into politics and dictionaries rather than just the creationists use of quote-mines when they claim a moral superiority that more and more is very apparently absolutely missing.
You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. ... What you are capable of understanding is tied directly to your ability to understand, and that is built on current knowledge, so it keeps changing.
... Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example? Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that? Currently we know ~10% of what we think the universe is. Will that increase? yes. Will the "what we think the universe is" increase? yes, as we learn more, we also learn what we don't know but hypothesis. So your question was silly.
Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? ... The correlations, the consilience, the continued evidence of old age from numerous different sources coming to the same results.
... What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? ... The most recent 50,000 years are all based on signals left by living organisms, year after year with the same basic "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" as exists today. The dating methods for more ancient times, like the ice-cores extending over 250,000 years in Greenland and 900,000 years in Antarctica have DNA in samples that show life was thriving at those times. They also validate radiometric methods, so the 4.5 billion year age of the earth and 3.5 billion year age of known life and all the fossils in between that flourish in the rocks of different ages all show a "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" ... without evidence of a world wide magic flood or segregation of organisms into discrete "kinds" ... You may not be interested in how old the earth actually is, but the reality makes YECists just as loony, schizophrenic and deluded as belief in a flat earth, for the same reason: evidence of reality says otherwise.
... I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. ... Except that it is the one way to have repeatably consistent information. Opinions and biased beliefs are notorious bad sources ... especially ones based on invalid myth, and moonstruck fantasy from listening to hucksters that are interested in one thing: making money off you (Ken Ham for example).
Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, ... Curiously it takes me much less than that to do the research to find the information I can use, and then organize it and assemble it, and you only need to read the first 13 posts to get the information I have condensed for you ... and anyone else interested in reality. The newest version is broken down a little more and has a lot of background information to assist understanding. Part 1 is the biological systems and it runs to some 20 posts of information, while Part 2 is the physical/chemical systems, currently at 7 posts and growing, while Part 3 will be about radiometric and cosmological systems (including one on why and how fast the Moon orbit is increasing and one on solar sunspot cycles and their footprints in the data). Mostly they include updated information that expands -- rearranges -- our knowledge of these systems. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining.... Most satellites are in low orbits that still have trace atmosphere, and so they slow them down bit by bit. The NASA engineers are well aware of this.
And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon. Indeed, and at the same time the spin of the earth is slowing down, both due to the gravitational effects of daily tides ... and this too results in data that shows that the earth is old, very very very old. 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