quote:I said "throughout the sequence". Which means from samples before and after 5,000 years.
You know that carbon samples were taken specifically beyond 5000 deep in a living tree, how? Citation exactly where the areas samples were taken from? The 'dating' of dead trees are not the topic here for you claim of nature being the same. I am not interested in statements of faith.
The issue is not how dates are attained using a belief in a same nature in the past. The issue is how you claim that carbon samples in trees with more rings than would be possible if the traditional estimates of when the flood happened exist in the specific area of 5000 plus deep tree rings on a living tree.
If you can't do that, fine. We might move on to looking at specs in sequences from dead trees.
quote:If there was no (or different) decay at the time the Universe would have been so fundamentally different that life as we know it would be impossible
I see nothing in the universe that suggests this. I suspect what you are thinking may be that the far universe is dated at billions of years old. Therefore you may think that seeing light from out there represents a sameness? That would not work either. We do not know, and that means science does not know what time itself or space itself are like in the far universe. This means that no distances to any star or any sizes, or travel times from stars are knowable. The only way you attach travel TIME and distances is based on believing that space and time are the same as we observe it here near earth. This also means that all TIMES of decay we observe anywhere out there beyond this solar system area are seen IN our time and space here. That could not be taken to represent decay times out there. We see the light only after it gets here.
Your views do not matter any. Neither do mine. The only thing that matters is the consensus of the scientific community.
Science has determined that the laws of physics are universal, invariant and isotropic. We have seen enough evidence in this universe from the hyperfine structure we measure with great accuracy in the interstellar medium to the analysis of the cosmic microwave background, to a hundred other facts in evidence that this is so.
So, yes, we do know what time and space are like in the far reaches of the universe billions of light years away. Yes, we do know they are the same as here on Earth. Yes, we do know with our best technology (and getting better every year) the distances to many stars/galaxies/clusters/super clusters, their sizes, their compositions, their evolution, their life spans and their histories. Yes, we do know all times of decay we observe anywhere out there in the far reaches of the universe billions of light years away are the same as we observe here. And yes, we do know the actual value of the energies emitted by those far off objects and can compensate for the effects of distance, spatial expansion, time dilation, absorption/re-emanation through intergalactic/interstellar clouds.
Our dates are accurate and your lies are rejected.
Your altered other nature of long ago or far away are bogus stupidities without evidence.
They are conjured fabrications to justify your religious lies.
Your lies and conjures are rejected by the scientific community the whole planet over. We are not as fucking stupid as you think we are.
quote:The only thing that matters is the consensus of the scientific community
What actually matters is the evidence.
quote:We have seen enough evidence in this universe from the hyperfine structure..
The energy level of atoms is only seen here. The magnetic moment is seen here. The magnetic field is seen here. The angular momentum is observed here. The conversion laws have only been tested and observed here. Velocity is a function of time also.
"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time." wiki
Sp looking things here does not tell us about time and the nature of time and space out in the universe. The3refore, there is no possible correlation.
Right, let's send you somewhere you haven't been - an original thought.
I have read some ancient text that tells me that the universe is 28 billion years old - twice as old as those silly scientists say it is. Therefore those silly scientists are wrong and nature is different out there - but different to the way you say it's different. So I'm right and you 're wrong.
So have at it - show how I'm wrong and you're right.
Bet you can't.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
quote:Do you know what a 21 cm spectral line looks like from a billion light years away? We do.
Do you know how to use this H I line to chart the movement of the spiral arms of our galaxy and other galaxies? We do.
Do you know how to use the gamma rays of quasar emissions to calculate the magnetic moment and thus the magnetic strength of the black hole's accretion disk thus its spin mass and charge? We do.
Unless time is the same what you thought was a billion ly could be a few light months away. Whatever you chart is of unknown distance. Magnetic moments are here. Right here. You have not gone out there. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of time and space in the far universe, so it cannot be used for correlations of age. Nothing to do with age correlations.
Unless time is the same what you thought was a billion ly could be a few light months away.
Well it is so it isn't.
Whatever you chart is of unknown distance.
Bullshit. We know how to chart out to many billions of light years, your religiously-based denials notwithstanding.
Magnetic moments are here. Right here. You have not gone out there.
Their information comes here in the form of their effects on the EM spectrum. Their values come here to us. And they are actual accurate values using instruments and techniques you couldn't even begin to understand.
And given your religious bullshit nature you would just deny their efficacy anyway.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of time and space in the far universe
Of course it does. It shows your "other" nature, your altered laws of physics, are contrivances of your religious bullshit.
quote:We know how to chart out to many billions of light years
No you do not, you can stay in denial all you like. The distances require and depend on time and space being the same all the way.
quote:Their information comes here in the form of their effects on the EM spectrum. Their values come here to us
Yes it does, it comes right here to our time and our space. Nothing in the spectrum tells us what the nature of time in the far universe is. If you comprehend what you are trying to talk about show us how you think it does exactly.
quote:It shows your "other" nature, your altered laws of physics, are...
Complete strawman bogus argument. The laws out there are not under discussion. Time is. Space it. Not laws. The only place nature and laws come into the discussion are on earth in the far past. Focus.
I'm about done with you. The onus is on you to provide counter evidence to the already accepted scientific evidence that makes up the mainstream. If you have none, you wont get a soapbox any longer. I will start with one day suspensions. End of story. Good day.
EvC Forum ⇒ All Forums ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Dates and Dating ⇒ Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ⇒ Reply
If you come across to the Social and religious issues group of Forums, you can get away with no objective evidence, though trust me you will still get challenged. In the Science Forums, however, there needs to be objective evidence.
The laws out there are not under discussion. Time is. Space it. Not laws. The only place nature and laws come into the discussion are on earth in the far past. Focus.
There are no other methods with which to attempt to define the far past.
And once again for the final time---the onus is on you to provide counter evidence, not on others to provide validation for science already validated.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer
“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” - Criss Jami, Killosophy
Also, I was reading recently that some stone tools used by early humans have been dated at hundreds of thousands of years old.
I concur with what Pollux said about radiocarbon dating probably being used on the organic components of the cave art. I wouldn't think that the stone of the stone tools would itself be radiometrically dated, since all that would give us would be when that stone had last solidified. Rather, tools and other non-organic artifacts would probably be associated with a period of habitation in that cave, which in turn would be determined by radiocarbon dating of associated organic remains such as a camp fire at that same level. Radiocarbon dating would not work for associated remains hundreds of thousands years old, so the dating of the layer containing those tools would have to be used.
Notice the emphasis on layers containing the artifacts and of them being associated with organic remains (where C14 dating is feasible) which are in the same layer. Everything in the same layer should have been buried at about the same time, so once you can determine the age of the layer then you have the age of the artifacts in that layer. This is why it is so important to keeping meticulous track of the exact location where something was found in a dig, be it archaeological or paleontological. In many cases, the only way you can date a find is through the layer in which it is found. That is why if you find a fossil or an artifact, then one of the worst things you could do is to remove it from its rock matrix and take it to a scientist; you have just destroyed valuable evidence as surely as if you had trampled through a crime scene handling everything.
Those are some general considerations. Articles about that cave or those stone tools should have more information to tell you how those dates were determined. Or the articles' bibliographies should point you to more primary sources containing that information you seek.
Or if your question is more generally how do they do that, then articles or textbooks about those practices should inform you.
Most geology dates are reached by dating igneous layers. These can sandwich particular fossil layers to give a date for them which could be applied elsewhere.
That's an important point that deserves more discussion.
Radiometric dating is largely restricted to igneous rock and can only date when that rock was last fully molten. A good source of how that works is Chris Stassen's talkorigins article, Isochron Dating.
But how does that work for sedimentary rock? I remember pondering that question and I found an answer in a textbook.
First, you have the Law of Superposition in which younger layers of rock sit on top of older layers, such that you can work out the age relative ages of the layers with respect to each other. In addition, you can use distinguishing characteristics of layers to identify them at other locations.
Then you have igneous intrusions in those layers which can be dated with radiometric methods. The textbook I read called them "tie points". When it's an igneous layer (eg, a layer of ash from a volcanic eruption or a lava flow on the surface), then once you get its age you know that the layers under it are older than that date and the layers above it are younger. If it's a vertical intrusion through sedimentary layers, then you know that those layers are older than that intrusion. If that intrusion then ends with a surface flow then you know the ages of the layers sandwiching that as in the ash layer/surface flow. If it's a horizontal intrusion, then you know that the layers above and below are older than that flow. Et cetera. Those igneous tie points allow you to bracket in onto the ages of sedimentary rocks.