22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…-surely this is PROOF that, at least for the oldest dates that can be made using non-radiometric dating methods, the half-lives of chemical elements did NOT change over that time period -how else can you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in COMPLETE agreement with the radiometric dates?
…Going back to radiometric dating over time in the short term does not
necessarily mean the same thing over time in the long term is true.
..…
-but, as I have already indicated, it would be an idiotic assumption to make that the half-lives of chemical elements do change over time when there is neither no evidence nor any known explanatio ...[text shortened]... ta is there? -creationists will not see what they don’t want to see, whether it is there or not.[/b]
..…
KellyJay
I would really like you to answer this one question above as this gets to the very hart of what I don’t yet understand about your position 🙂
Remember that the link pointed out:
“…There are over FORTY such [Radiometric dating] techniques, each using a DIFFERENT radioactive element or a DIFFERENT WAY of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques AGREE with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the COMPLETE agreement between radiometric dates AND OTHER dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers….”(my emphasis)
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis will be the next thing I write about.
[b]…-surely this is PROOF that, at least for the oldest dates that can be made using non-radiometric dating methods, the half-lives of chemical elements did NOT change over that time period -how else can you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in COMPLETE agreement with the radiometric dates?
..…
...[text shortened]... AND OTHER dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers….”(my emphasis)[/b]
Kelly
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCan you give me a couple of examples of agreement between a few
[b]…-surely this is PROOF that, at least for the oldest dates that can be made using non-radiometric dating methods, the half-lives of chemical elements did NOT change over that time period -how else can you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in COMPLETE agreement with the radiometric dates?
..…
...[text shortened]... AND OTHER dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers….”(my emphasis)[/b]
dating methods?
Kelly
23 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is wrong with the examples already given in that link?
Can you give me a couple of examples of agreement between a few
dating methods?
Kelly
Ok;
1, tree rings and radiometric dating
2, ice cores and radiometric dating
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/dating.html
“…"V. C. LaMarche and Katherine Hirsckboeck have recently reported, in the magazine Nature, on a study of the frost damage in the rings of the Bristlecone pine. In the recent tree-ring records, they find a remarkable correlation between frost damage rings and the known date of large eruptions. For example, in the past 100 years, there have been four climactically important events: Krakatoa (1883), Pelee, Soufriere (1902), Katami (1912), and Agung (1963). In each case, a ring of frost damage was found and always in the same year if the eruption was early in the year or, otherwise, the next year. The frost ring never preceded the volcanic event, which seems to prove that the frost rings are the result of the eruption.
…
Support for placing the eruption of Thera in the seventeenth century B.C.E. comes from an ancient Chinese text referring to the time of King Chieh.
"King Chieh lived at the same time as T'ang (the first king of the Shang Dynasty), which, according to scribes, was sixteen generations before King Wen. Because the Chinese considered a generation to be thirty years long, one can infer that Chieh ruled about 480 years before Wen - around 1617 B.C., plus or minus a decade or two. Armed with additional eclipse dates for 1876 B.C. (twenty-five generations before Wen) and 1302 B.C. (five generations before Wen), Kevin Pang plotted the eclipses on a graph, fitting a curve through them and locating the point that, according to Chinese history, places Chieh sixteen generations before Wen."
- Charles Pellegrino, Unearthing Atlantis (1991) pp. 237-238
"We find the date is again 1600 B.C., plus or minus thirty years. Thus the historical records confirm what was suggested by the ice cores, tree rings and older radiocarbon dates
…”
-so this is proof that the tree rings ARE generally annual rings at least as far back as 1600 B.C.
-if you want actual data of the correlation between tree-ring dating and radiometric dating:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xyM5ybHoc9UJ:www.geochronometria.pl/pdf/geo_20/geo_20_10.pdf+tree+rings+and+radiometric+dating+correlation+agreement+-creationist&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&lr=lang_en
-you will see a lot of data there and, using very comprehensive statistical analysis, it concludes that there is good agreement between tree-ring dating and radiometric dating.
Any comments?
How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, change significantly with time?
23 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI bet he objects to the facts. Read the first posting in the "Double truth"-thread: Thread 111529
What is wrong with the examples already given in that link?
Ok;
1, tree rings and radiometric dating
2, ice cores and radiometric dating
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/dating.html
“…"V. C. LaMarche and Katherine Hirsckboeck have recently reported, in the magazine Nature, on a study of the frost damage in the rings of ...[text shortened]... t there is good agreement between tree-ring dating and radiometric dating.
Any comments?
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay tree rings and ice cores it is.
What is wrong with the examples already given in that link?
Ok;
1, tree rings and radiometric dating
2, ice cores and radiometric dating
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/dating.html
“…"V. C. LaMarche and Katherine Hirsckboeck have recently reported, in the magazine Nature, on a study of the frost damage in the rings of ...[text shortened]... uld break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, change significantly with time?
Kelly
24 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Oh, right 🙂
I saw the post count was at 499, so I decided to round things off and post number 500. 🙂
I had all sorts of absurd speculations in my mind of what you could be
referring to given recent posts such as you counted 500 morons in
this thread or the Earth is just 500 years old or you intend to live that
long or it is your 500th birthday today and we should all say “happy
birthday to you“.
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTree rings, Ice cores
-and the answer to the last question in my last post?
"How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, change significantly with time?:"
This one?
KJ
24 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayStill avoiding the question. (*sigh*)
Tree rings, Ice cores
"How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, change significantly with time?:"
This one?
KJ
Question was:
What is wrong with the examples already given in that link?
Ok;
1, tree rings and radiometric dating
2, ice cores and radiometric dating
And you answered "Tree rings, Ice cores"
The only thing I can read out of this is that you think that Tree rings and Ice cores don't agree to eachother. I asked you "Don't you belive in Tree rings and Ice cores as datng methods?
And you are still avoiding the question. (*sigh*)
25 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayyes 🙂
Tree rings, Ice cores
"How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, change significantly with time?:"
This one?
KJ