Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Greenland Ice Cores
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 39 (93213)
03-18-2004 6:12 PM


in round numbers for ease of assimilation:
by tree rings 10,000 years
by algae layers 45,000 years
by ice cores 200,000 years (Vostok)
by calcite layers 567,700 years (Devils hole) (see message 4 in current lineup -- was #3?)


this was reply to prophex's post
EvC Forum: Greenland Ice Cores
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-18-2004]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 39 (93215)
03-18-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Loudmouth
03-18-2004 4:21 PM


try redoing the graph and allow a polynomial -- I'll be the slope would match current speed (looking at the graph it looks like it would be concave upwards) and you would get a better fit. a progressive change in speed would not be unusual.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 03-18-2004 4:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 39 (93217)
03-18-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by joshua221
03-18-2004 4:53 PM


Re: corroboration
How old is the Earth by the Annual observations? (tree rings, ice cores etc...)
The longest record of annual cycles (Devil's Hole calcite data)stretches back 500,000 years. But that does not represent the age of the earth, merely the minimum age of the earth. That calcite data is consistent with uranium-series dating. The uranium-series dating is used on ancient rocks to give dates of close to 4 billion years old. Argon radiometric dating has produced dating consistent with known historical lava flows and the eruption of Mt Vesuvius. The same technique has dated ancient rocks at close to 4 billion years old.
The logical conclusion is that the earth is at least 4 billion years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joshua221, posted 03-18-2004 4:53 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 03-18-2004 7:03 PM wj has not replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 7:04 PM wj has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 39 (93224)
03-18-2004 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
03-18-2004 6:25 PM


Re: corroboration
The uranium-series dating is used on ancient rocks to give dates of close to 4 billion years old.
That's the oldest rocks ... the oldest minerals that we've found are zircons that are 4.3 to 4.4 billion years old. See Earlier Water on Earth? Oldest Rock Suggests Hospitable Young Planet.
Lead-lead isochrons (another variant of uranium series dating) is used on meteorites and terrestrial rocks to obtain the generally accepted age of the Earth: about 4.55 billion years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 03-18-2004 6:25 PM wj has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 39 (93225)
03-18-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
03-18-2004 6:25 PM


Re: corroboration
Last I heard it was 4.55 billion years old +/- 2%
The point of the layers is that the ages are not based on any scientific theories, just counts. That they corroborate the measurements made by means that are based on theory (ie - all radiometric methods) means that the theories behind those measurements are validated for general use in dating other objects -- like the full age of the earth.
Any C'ist that would argue that they cannot be extended beyond the validating data would have to show what mechanism would change the theoretical results, ie - why would the rate of radioactive decay suddenly change?
Of course YEC's are SOL with the data from the lake algae, let alone the calcite layers. Someone mentioned Evo's being afraid of YECers a while back ... humorous.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 03-18-2004 6:25 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 03-19-2004 9:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 39 (93335)
03-19-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
03-18-2004 7:04 PM


Re: corroboration
The point of the layers is that the ages are not based on any scientific theories, just counts.
Nitpicking in creationist mode, the relationship between counted layers and years is based on a scientific theory (albeit an excptionally well supported one).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:50 PM JonF has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 39 (93437)
03-19-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
03-19-2004 9:06 AM


Re: corroboration
ahahahahaaaa
at that level of nit-pick, getting out of bed in the morning and expecting your feet to touch the floor is based on theory.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 03-19-2004 9:06 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 03-20-2004 9:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 39 (93490)
03-20-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
03-19-2004 8:50 PM


Re: corroboration
at that level of nit-pick, getting out of bed in the morning and expecting your feet to touch the floor is based on theory.
But that doesn't stop a creationist from denying the layer-to-year relationship because he/she didn't personally observe every layer forming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2004 3:12 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 39 (93543)
03-20-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JonF
03-20-2004 9:27 AM


Re: corroboration
The key is in numerous corroborations by multiple different systems. I will be finishing an essay on this topic that is in some depth soon, that I have borrowed some information from for this discussion.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 03-20-2004 9:27 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024