|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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.
This can't be stressed enough. The results from Lake Suigetsu correlate with results from a lake in Poland. So we have two lakes on opposite sides of the world that have the same sorting of organic debris by 14C concentrations. Even within the same method there is considerable correlation. The correlations become even more impressive when you compare different methods. The two sets of lake varve data also agree with tree dendrochronology from both Europe and North America, coral dating by annual growth patterns, and carbon dioxide captured in annual ice layers in both Greenland and Antarctica. I believe there is also correlation with stalagmite dating. Creationists need to explain how all of these quite different methods all agree with one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. Not only that, you can also find markers from known volcanic eruptions in the correct ice layers (to which the other methods correlate to). I even remember reading a paper where they used modern tree dendrochronology to show the spread of 14C spikes caused by atmospheric hydrogen bomb testing. They were actually able to show how the 14C spike spread from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere over a years time.
And another 5 years have passed, making it 10,439 years of continuous data uninterrupted by a purported flood. That is another great point. All of these data sets would be easily interrupted by Noah's Flood. In fact, the ice sheets themselves would have lifted off of the continents (unless creationists want to claim that ice did not float in Noah's time?). You should also see an interruption in tree growth and diatom sedimentation. Heck, you would expect contamination from marine plankton in the Lake Suigetsu record, but it isn't there. Instead, it is all fresh water diatom growth and organic debris sorted by tiny differences in 14C. C'mon creationists, explain these correlations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
RAZD writes: So let's start with Message 1 and see where reality leads us. You have always done a great job of showing correlation between non-radiometric methods and radiometric methods. However, the correlation between completely independent radiometric methods is also quite compelling. Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite essays on the subject:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway. The map is not the territory. Those who can't understand this simple concept are open to mockery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Uh huh. Well, so are some who do understand it. That wouldn't even work in 2nd grade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Bristlecone pines (BCP) are possibly the oldest trees on Earth, with he oldest living specimen of bristlecone pine reputed to be approximately 4,900 years old. . . As RAZD has stated many times, it is the consilience between data sets that demonstrates their accuracy. What you need to explain is how the Bristlecone Pine data in North American correlates with the Oak data from Europe. If local changes cause multiple rings or lack of rings, then how is it that a different species half way across the globe produces the same data? On top of that, you also need to explain how the tree ring data also correlates with lake varves, corals, ice layers, and speleothems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
starman writes: Rings that grew in hours look similar to ones that grow in this state in say a year. That is entirely made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
starman writes: I have Oklo. You have religion and fables about Oklo. Yu failed to prove a same nature in the past and you may NOT use one in models for the past. Evermore. The ratios of decay products in the Oklo reactor exactly matches modern decay rates and products. The past matches the present, and we have the physical evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
creation writes: You CANNOT discuss what time is like in the far universe because you do not know even what time is here. Why should we even care about your rantings? It's not like you will be convinced by logic, reason, or evidence, so why should your opinions carry any weight?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Oh there's SO much No Evidence for the Flood. All those strata and fossils all over the world. They don't stop being evidence for the Flood just because they've been commandeered to another purpose by evos. You claim that any strata is a product of the Flood no matter what it looks like. You are incapable of describing what features a geologic formation would need to have in order for it to be evidence against a flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: The evidence for the Flood is obvious. Sometimes things are too obvious for the scientific mind. It's just a matter of standing back and noticing the facts apart from the absurd interpretations laid on them. Your claims are undermined by the fact that you will label any geologic formation as a product of the flood, no matter what it looks like. You don't have evidence. You have a dogmatic belief impervious to evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024