Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Edited by RAZD, : post addedEdited by RAZD, : referencesEdited by RAZD, : deletedEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : deleted

Edited by RAZD, : deleted

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This is from a creationist source: Biblical Chronologist.org article: "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?"

quote:

---

An Independent Check

​

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

​

...

​

European Tree-ring Chronology

​

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. ... The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

​

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.

​

...

​

Multiple Rings Per Year?

​

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

​

...

​

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

​

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

​

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

​

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.

---

It comes back to the internal correlations between the data contained within the tree rings.Thus we see that the methodology used by dendrochronologists is validated by the independent data from other dendrochronologies (consistent) and from 14C/12C content within the rings.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?" abstract from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the ¹⁴C ages with the actual depth in the sediment. A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

quote:

---

RESULTS

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and ¹⁴C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The ¹⁴C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

---

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:

​

Graph of actual ¹⁴C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"There is no rational reason for the ¹⁴C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age.This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age.And from another source:http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

quote:

---

Estimation of the eruption ages of five tephra layers at Ohnuma Moor based on AMS-¹⁴C dates

​

As the results of tephra correlation in the present paper and Katoh et al. (2006), six tephra layers included in the finer sediments about 17-m thick at the Ohnuma Moor were correlated with K-Ah, SUk, MsP, Sh, AT, and Nh in descending stratigraphic order. There was no age estimation of the tephra layers except for K-Ah and AT based on the precise AMS-¹⁴C dating. We also obtained stratigraphically concordant AMS-¹⁴C ages from the same sediments (Table 2 and Fig. 2) that permit the estimation of eruption ages of SUk, MsP, Sh, and Nh. In addition to these tephra layers, we determine the eruption age of AT and compare it wisuth the previous precise age estimation (Matsumoto et al., 1987; Murayama et al., 1993; Miyairi et al., 2004) to asses our results.

---

This independent study uses ¹⁴C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the ¹⁴C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a ¹⁴C age of ~16,500 BP.Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and ¹⁴C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu gives me a ¹⁴C age of ~16,500 BP. The same ¹⁴C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments.Another consistent correlation with age as measured by the Lake Suigetsu varves.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Kitagawa, Hiroyuki; van, der Plicht Johannes, "A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE" from Radiocarbon Volume 40 Number 1 p. 505-515. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from https://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=
   http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.arizona.edu%2FVolume40%2F
   Number1%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v40_n1_505_515_v.pdf
   
2. Shigehiro KATOH, Kumiko HANDA, Masayuki HYODO, Hiroshi SATO, Toshio NAKAMURA, Tohru YAMASHITA and Tohru DANHARA, "Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS -14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan" Nature and Human Activities, 11, 29-50, 2007. Accessed 24 Mar 2009 from
   http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

Edited by RAZD, : refs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

The last two posts have shown that there are internal correlations between three sets of data for tree rings and for the Lake Suigetsu varves, and now we look at information that demonstrates an internal correlation for radioactive decay and age:Uranium Halos - evidence of an old earthRadiometric Dating (8)

quote:

---

At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.

---

This is part of his response to the question of Polonium halos. NOTE: this is not a discussion about the validity of Polonium halos - anyone wanting to discuss those can go to polonium halos or to discuss how Uranium halos are formed - anyone wanting to discuss that can go to Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?. This is about the correlation between alpha energy, the radiohalo diamter and the decay rate of different isotopes.The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref): Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle.This unique energy then determines how far (on average) an alpha particle will travel before it gets stopped and absorbed into the surrounding material (and causes the ring pattern to be visible) and the result is a halo or a number of halos around decaying inclusions that look like rings, but are actually spherical, and something like this: The halos require more than one particle to form as each one only makes a point on the ring. Thus uranium, with it's long half-life, takes "several hundred million years to form."Now the fun part: this is based on our knowledge of physics and the physical constants that tell us how things behave in the universe, so what happens if you have fast decay instead of old time? The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission (2)

quote:

---

Unlike the electric forces, whose strengths are given by the simple Coulomb force law, there is no simple formula for how the strong nuclear force depends on distance. Roughly speaking, it is effective over ranges of ~1 fm, but falls off extremely quickly at larger distances (much faster than 1/r2). Since the radius of a neutron or proton is about 1 fm, that means that when a bunch of neutrons and protons are packed together to form a nucleus, the strong nuclear force is effective only between neighbors.

​

In a very heavy nucleus, (c), a proton that finds itself near the edge has only a few neighbors close enough to attract it significantly via the strong nuclear force, but every other proton in the nucleus exerts a repulsive electrical force on it. If the nucleus is large enough, the total electrical repulsion may be sufficient to overcome the attraction of the strong force, and the nucleus may spit out a proton. Proton emission is fairly rare, however; a more common type of radioactive decay in heavy nuclei is alpha decay, shown in (d). The imbalance of the forces is similar, but the chunk that is ejected is an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons) rather than a single proton.

​

It is also possible for the nucleus to split into two pieces of roughly equal size, (e), a process known as fission.

---

This is why we have alpha particles instead of free protons being ejected. If you change the forces involved then you change this balance, changing the radiation effect. Alpha Binding Energy (3)

quote:

---

The nuclear binding energy of the alpha particle is extremely high, 28.3 MeV. It is an exceptionally stable collection of nucleons, and those heavier nuclei which can be viewed as collections of alpha particles (carbon-12, oxygen-16, etc.) are also exceptionally stable. This contrasts with a binding energy of only 8 MeV for helium-3, which forms an intermediate step in the proton-proton fusion cycle.

---

I envisage it as a pyramid with each particle in contact with the other, and therefore bound by the strong force. Again, decrease the forces to cause faster decay and you break down the alpha particle.From Alpha Barrier Penetration (4)

quote:

---

The energy of emitted alpha particles was a mystery to early investigators because it was evident that they did not have enough energy, according to classical physics, to escape the nucleus. Once an approximate size of the nucleus was obtained by Rutherford scattering, one could calculate the height of the Coulomb barrier at the radius of the nucleus. It was evident that this energy was several times higher than the observed alpha particle energies. There was also an incredible range of half lives for the alpha particle which could not be explained by anything in classical physics.

The resolution of this dilemma came with the realization that there was a finite probability that the alpha particle could penetrate the wall by quantum mechanical tunneling. Using tunneling, Gamow was able to calculate a dependence for the half-life as a function of alpha particle energy which was in agreement with experimental observations.

---

Alpha Tunneling Model (5)

quote:

---

​

The illustration represents an attempt to model the alpha decay characteristics of polonium-212, which emits an 8.78 MeV alpha particle with a half-life of 0.3 microseconds. The Coulomb barrier faced by an alpha particle with this energy is about 26 MeV, so by classical physics it cannot escape at all. Quantum mechanical tunneling gives a small probability that the alpha can penetrate the barrier. To evaluate this probability, the alpha particle inside the nucleus is represented by a free-particle wavefunction subject to the nuclear potential. Inside the barrier, the solution to the Schrodinger equation becomes a decaying exponential. Calculating the ratio of the wavefunction outside the barrier and inside and squaring that ratio gives the probability of alpha emission.

---

Change the decay rate, and you change the energy of the alpha particle. Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification (1)

quote:

---

However, if the alpha has enough energy to surmount this barrier then it will regain that energy as electrostatic repulsion once it gets outside the range of the attractive strong nuclear force. One important consequence of this is that all alpha emissions have at least ~5 MeV energy. Furthermore, half-life is inversely related to decay energy.

---

(bold for empHASis)So what is that relationship? PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.1 Q-value and the Conditions for Radioactive Decay (6)

quote:

---

The mass formula that we have derived in the last chapter helps us understand what the conditions for nuclear instability are and when a decay takes place. A nuclear decay can in principle happen if the total mass of the initial atom is larger than the sum of the masses of all the decay products. The difference between the mass of the initial atom and the sum of the masses of the decay products (multiplied by c²) is called Q-value and determines how much kinetic energy is in the final system.
...
In the case where the nucleus splits in two, the respective condition would be

M(Z,A) > M(Z',A') + M(Z-Z',A-A') (3.2)

---

Multiply by c² and the difference between the two sides of the inequality is the Q-value: With Z = number of neutrons and A = number of protons & neutron, and where Z'=2 and A'=4 for an alpha particle.This equation is the same as the one we started with, rearranged and using different symbology: PHYS 490/891 - Winter 2007, 3.4 Alpha Decay (7)

quote:

---

For heavy nuclei the binding energy per nucleon decreases with the number of nucleons; this opens the possibility to split a nucleus into two or more parts which have together a lower mass than the initial nucleus. One specific case of this type of nuclear decay is the alpha decay: the alpha particle is a 4He nucleus consisting of two protons and two neutrons. As we can see in Fig. 7 this nuclide has a fairly high binding energy per nucleon compared to the other light nuclei. A process where a nucleus emits an alpha particle (or we could say: is split in two nuclei whereby one of them is a 4He nucleus) is called alpha decay. Such a decay is allowed if condition (3.2) is fulfilled, with Z' = 2 and A' = 4. As before this condition is equivalent to requiring that the Q-value be larger than zero. Fig. 9 shows a diagram with Q-values for the alpha decay of β-stable nuclei. Positive values start to appear for A ≥ 150.

​

While the energy range of alpha-decays observed in nature is relatively narrow (~2 − 12 MeV) the lifetimes span a range from 10 ns to more than 10^19 years. To better understand this behaviour we will investigate the mechanism of this decay a little closer.
...
The decay probability is proportional to the transmission probability and the frequency with which the alpha particle hits the wall. With the probability w(&alpha) that the alpha particle exists as such inside the nucleus and taking into account the time the alpha particle takes to cross the nucleus we find for the decay constant

λ = w(&alpha)v_αe^-G/2R

---

Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes.There should be no characteristic uranium halos with the unique energy of uranium alpha decay from fast decay.The existence of (common) uranium halos then is evidence that shows the physical constants have not changed while they were formed, and their formation in turn is evidence that the earth is old, at least several hundred million years old.Another internally consistent correlation that shows the earth is indeed old.Enjoy.

---

Reference

1. Anon "Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification" Chemistry 410 Lecture 4, University of Washington, Dept of Chemistry, Lecture 4, last modified 16 Apr 2007 accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://depts.washington.edu/.../handout_Lect_4_Alpha_Decay.pdf
   
2. Epina eBook Team "The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission" Lectures in Physics, derived from Benjamin Crowell's Light and Matter textbooks on physics website Last Update: 31 Mar 2006, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from The Strong Nuclear Force, Alpha Decay and Fission
3. Nave, R "Alpha Barrier Penetration" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/radact.html#c3
4. Nave, R "Alpha Binding Energy" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/radact.html#c4
5. Nave, R "Alpha Tunneling Model" Hyperphysics website hosted by Georgia State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/alptun.html#c2
6. Rau, Wolfgang "3.1 Q-value and the Conditions for Radioactive Decay" PHYS 490/891, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Winter 2009, Lecture 5, Queens University, last updated 12 Jan 2009, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://www.physics.queensu.ca/...s490/Lecture/Lecture_05.pdf
7. Rau, Wolfgang "3.4 Alpha Decay" PHYS 490/891, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Winter 2009, Lecture 6, Queens University, last updated 12 Jan 2009, accessed 26 Mar 2009 from http://www.physics.queensu.ca/...s490/Lecture/Lecture_06.pdf
8. Wiens, Roger C. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective." The American Scientific Affiliation: A Fellowship of Christians in Scientists. First edition 1994; revised version 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Radiometric Dating

Edited by RAZD, : added refs, some infoEdited by RAZD, : ) not Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Hi RAZD,Great idea and great job with these posts. Now that you have so eloquently pointed out one reason why nuclear decay rates cannot vary, this might be a good place to discuss the Oklo reactor, proof of an old earth.

quote:

---

For those who need a refresher on how a nuclear reactor works, and why U-235 is necessary and why U-238 by itself isn't sufficient see this link, 2nd page.

---

Natural Uranium is almost all the 238 isotope, with small amounts of the 235 isotope (and trace amounts of U-234 which is unimportant to this discussion).
You need a 3% concentration U-235/U-238 to initiate chain reactions. Weapons grade Uranium contains 90% U-235.Dr. Bouzigues did a routine measurement on the composition of ores for a reprocessing plant in France, June 2, 1972.
He noticed that some samples displayed a 235 to 238 ratio of 0.717% instead of the 0.720% usually found in all terrestrial samples - and even in meteorites and moon rocks.The discrepancy was traced back to the mine site seams. Chemical reactions cannot account for isotopic variations, only nuclear reactions and decays can do that.
The depleated seams of U-235 contained the distinctive pattern of 30 or more other atomic elements that are formed as by-products of nuclear fission reactions.

---

The tell-tale signature of nuclear fission products is known from man-made reactor experiments. Some of the elements present, like neodymium, have many isotopes but not all are fission products. The non-fission products provide a gauge of the abundance of all the isotopes before the natural reactions began and so enable the determination of the effects and running time of those reactions.A detailed geochemical survey of the site was carried out and 15 fossilized ancient reactor sites were found, 14 at Oklo and 1 at Bangombe 35km to the south. Reactors are controlled by introducing a moderator like graphite or water. A moderator is necessary to slow down the fast neutrons created during fission to the thermal energy range so as to increase their efficiency in causing further fissions in U-235.Nuetrons are emitted with high speeds and are readily absorbed by U-238 nuclei. They need to be slowed down in order to be absorbed by U-235 in order to sustain a chain reaction. Although today the natural abundance of U-235 relative to U-238 is about 0.7%, the ratio of the two isotopes has not been constant throughout the past.

---

They both decay slowly but at different rates. The half-life of U-235 is about 700 million years while that of U-238 is about 4.5 billion years. The faster decay of U-235 means that there was more U-235 relative to U-238 in the past than there is today.So to have the 3% ratio of U-235 to U-238 necessary to carry on a reaction moderated by water the natural reactor had to be 2 billion years old. The original source of U in the earth was quite small, just a few parts per million in the earth's make-up. The Oklo natural reactors were made possible by the deposition of a Uranium rich seam inside a layer of sandstone lying on top of sheets of granite.The granite layers are tilted at about 45 degrees and this led to a build up of rainwater and soluble uranium oxide deep underground at the bottom of the slope. The oxidizing environment needed to create the water required to concentrate the Uranium was brought about by a significant change in the earth's biosphere.

---

About two billion years ago a change of atmosphere occured, brought about by the evolution of blue-green algae, the first organisms able to carry out photosynthesis. Their activity increased the oxygen content of the water and allowed some of the Uranium to change into soluble oxides.The reactor heated the water turning it to steam at which the nuetrons, no longer moderated (slowed down), were no longer absorbed by the U-235, only by the U-238 and so the chain reaction shut off. This allowed things to cool down whereupon the water condensed again and the reaction switched back on.By the amount of fission by products it is possible to determine that this process of stop go activity seems to have been repeated intermittently over nearly a million years, with episodes of chain reactions lasting for periods varying from just a few years to thousands of years before the reactor finally switched itself off.

---

So to summarize, there is no way for the current natural concentration ratio between U-235/U-238 of 0.7% to carry out a chain reaction. There is no chemical means to selectively concentrate one isotopic form of an element relative to another isotope of that element.This means that the natural reactor has to be 2 billion years old in order for an isotopic ratio to exist to allow a chain reaction to occur. The by products of the chain reaction alone required this reactor to be in operation for nearly a million years to accumulate.So again the earth is old.Edited by shalamabobbi, : formattingEdited by Admin, : Replace hash lines with horizontal rule.

This is great stuff, and the significant part for this thread is the correlation of the reactions timing to the environment, thus validating the age at which sufficient free oxygen was available: This change in the environment also shows up in other ways - the existence of oxidized iron bands, for example.More about the Oklo Reactors can be found here:
http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/ (use the sidebar links for more)Enjoy.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took a bunch of "-" out of quote box to restore page width to normal.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Well we'll try the question here

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

There is no evidence of such. Even AIG (Answers in Genesis) recommends that the "Vapor Canopy" be not used. One point is such a canopy would preclude life on this planet as the heat from such would have made the earth's temperature similar to that of Venus.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

By what mechanism does our Creationist friend think that a "vapour canopy" would inhibit C14 formation, I wonder?By what mechanism would the "vapour canopy" remain in the atmosphere?By what mechanism would light pass through the "vapour canopy" to allow life to continue to exist?Most importantly, what extra-Biblical evidence supports the existence of such a "vapour canopy?"The vapor canopy model presents such a deluge of issues that those who still think it holds water can only be described as vapid.

Well, if you're going to delve into puns you could describe them as all wet and much in need of hydrotherapy.But more seriously, it is simply amazing the nonsense YECs come up with to try to explain the the age of the earth and the biblical flood in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.I call these "what ifs.""What if" the decay constant varies? There's no evidence that it does, but "what if" it did?The vapor canopy and wildly fluctuating decay constant are classic "what ifs" -- totally unsupported by scientific evidence, but enough to let some YECs delude themselves that science supports their religious beliefs when it really contradicts those beliefs.And there you have some of the differences between creation "science" and real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Just a reminder folks, the focus of this thread is on the correlations that confirm and validate all the various dating methods.The vapor canopy is not the topic (I think we must have several on it already - an open one is Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep)The claim that there is more and more evidence for a young earth is a problem of logic and the completeness of explanations.It is easy to find evidence of young parts of an old world -- anyone watching lava flow is seeing the production of new rock formations that will date young, too young to measure with radiometric methods.The problem for young earthers is NOT that there is no evidence of young elements in an old earth, but that it is impossible to explain the elements of an OLD earth with a young earth scenario.These elements exist in great numbers - a few of them are showcased on this thread, because not only are they evidence of an old earth, but they do not rely on radiometric methods, but on systems as simple as counting layers.But they are also showcased because they show other evidence of the past and each method correlates in multiple ways, not just on age.We see (have seen and will continue to see) people throwing out ad hoc conjectures for ways to explain how the ages can be measured incorrectly, but not one person has been able to explain a single correlation between different age measurement mechanisms. It is these correlations that defeat the ad hoc conjectures.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

see my remark in
Vapour canopy and fountains of the deepEdited by bluescat48, : clarity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008