Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

And his post #666 is proof! Seriously, though lets regroup. Here is the topic starter again:

quote:

---

There seems to be a major point of disagreement amongst those proposing a Y.E.C. model of life's history. On the one hand, some propose widespread and rapid evolution, including speciation (within "kinds") after the flood, while others deny that such things can happen. So, does the model require this speciation, especially considering that space on the Ark was limited? And how does it happen? Are beneficial mutations involved?
Let's discuss the model, which seems to be in need of a major update.

---

Don't you mean to have this on the Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? thread?

Alas, for many people, science is still working as their Brainwashing Machine. Reading the typical stuff they are saying, it's clear that their main presupposition is quite obsolete one - namely, that the physical reality works as an independent mechanism. This old paradigm has been completely disproved but still somehow remains in the "mainstream", especially outside the modern physics. Edited by AlexCaledin, : "for many people" seems better than "to many people", doesn't it?

And I notice that once again you fail to even attempt dealing with the thread.Please show how "This old paradigm has been completely disproved ... " because inquiring minds want to know.Without that, all you have is imagination and wishful thinking. As I said on Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? in Message 142This world of delusion is what you create to keep from admitting that evidence as simple as tree rings exists.Now sadly, for you, these threads are science threads, they do not deal with make-believe, but facts, objective empirical facts.So either pony up -- starting with your proof -- or admit that you have no scientific argument against the evidence detailed in these threads showing that the earth is old.Belief is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence. Make believe is not evidence. Tree rings are evidence.Enjoy

quote:

---

There are no missing isotopes.

---

Actually, in Oklo there are supposed to have been a chain of decays. Depending on the half lives, and when the reactions are thought to have happened, some isotopes would no longer be expected to be there because they would have decayed away. For example, if something was supposedly decaying for a few billion years, and something, say, had a half life of 50,000 years, when we look at what is there now, we would not expect to see the isotopes with the 50,000 year half life...would we? So, it would now be missing.

Nor do you have evidence there was not a former nature. Either one. So that doesn't help you.As for your pics, can you tell us how old the tree was and where the pics were in the life of the tree? Ha. You seem to be making the point that in THIS nature, a tree ring sequence will be a certain way. Irrelevant to your discussion of some different nature in the past.

I think the big issue for rapid or slow evolution would be what nature it happened in. You would need to know that.

We know what "nature" things happened in.If you disagree, you need to present scientific evidence to the contrary.

To the contrary of what? A hollow boast? Ha. I claim science doesn't know either way. The evidence for that is watching you post.

Hello, creation. When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are? How many? Just curious....

Not really. It depends on the technology and method on how much is detected. I would expect to find a low reading of long-gone isotopes in the equipment for a myriad of reasons. The in scientific articles mean a lot.

Hello creation, and welcome to the fray.I've inserted comments that you are replying to, so you can see how this helps communication. Actually we do have evidence in the consilience of all the age measuring systems consistently agreeing one with the other, with no anomalies, year after year, decade after decade, millennia after millennia.But more to the point, this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies.One of these is that we don't base science on fantasy or imagination. We have facts, data, objective empirical evidence, and we have theories derived from the evidence to explain the evidence. The better the theory explains the evidence the more applicable it is. To apply theory we make predictions and then test them. Then more predictions are made. This is called the scientific method, a constant feed-back loop mechanism to test and expand our knowledge: As long as a theory provides usable predictions (ones that come true) we continue to use it, each positive prediction providing further validation of the value of the theory.When a theory provides unusable predictions (ones that are false) we stop using it, either modifying the theory to accommodate the new information or developing a new theory to explain all the evidence (including the new evidence).In this way we move from Aristotle's concept of gravity, to Newton's Law of Gravity, to Einstein's Relativity, in each case providing better explanations for the observed behaviors of objects in gravity fields. And I ask you, as I asked starman, what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past, and what is reaching us from the stars (Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)).Without evidence you do not have a theory to test, just imagination and fantasy. Without evidence there is no reason to consider imagination and fantasy as an information gathering system equal to what science discovers and demonstrates.When there is neither evidence for nor evidence against, then we can simply ignore such concepts until such time as there is evidence ... and a that point start a scientific investigation. If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology, then I suggest you start with the updated, improved (information added) thread The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) - starting with Message 3 and running through Message 17 with particular attention to Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, then I expect you to take my arguments seriously, to read for understanding and to ask questions where you have problems with the information.And I expect you to provide some rational evidence based foundation for your argument, rather than just pot-shots.Enjoy

True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because

• short half-life isotopes have all decayed to the next isotope in the decay chain, a fact that would not occur with a young earth, and they leave evidence of their existence in the existence of those products,
  ​
• the products of the decay of those short half-life isotopes a just exactly the same products as we observe today, and they are in just exactly the same proportions to the other elements as we observe today.

If you want a further discussion on this decay chain evidence, then I suggest you read Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?. You may want to start at Message 47 where the decay chain is discussed.Sadly some of the pictures are no longer linked due to changing service from photo storage providers.Enjoy

So prove that the next isotopes in the chain cam from decay?

Not that I want to share here.Edited by creation, : No reason given.