25 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd now the avoided question:
Will do
KJ
"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?"
05 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGood agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other. The main
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?
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true and constant over time and nothing else
affected the things we are measuring. For example tree rings is it
only time that gives us rings, could it be conditional changes in the
world around them, are all trees rings accepted as good and in
agreement with all others, or are there some that are thought of as
a better read than others with respect to the passage of time?
I will give you more of an answer to your posts soon, but lately I have
had the flu, we have had a house guest that got sick and ended up
in the hospital all at once, so life has been sort of hectic to say the
least.
Kelly
05 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…
Good agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other. The main
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true and constant over time and nothing else
affected the things we are measuring. For example tree rings is it
only time that gives us ri ...[text shortened]... nded up
in the hospital all at once, so life has been sort of hectic to say the
least.
Kelly
Good agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other.
..…
So what do you claim they mean by “Good agreement” if it isn’t “with each other”?
….The main
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true and constant over time and nothing else
affected the things we are measuring...…
Yes, you said this before and, despite the fact you are not even close to being an expert on physics, you said this about the half-life of radioactive elements even though their half-life is determined by the laws of physics thus making it inexplicable if their half-life changed over time.
So I repeat my original question:
"…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, changed significantly with time?…"
-and “good agreement” in the above obviously means good agreement “with each other”.
….For example tree rings is it
only time that gives us rings, could it be conditional changes in the
world around them, …
…
Not sure what you mean here -the differences between the weather of the seasons (almost totally day-length, temperature and rainfall) and how the growth of new wood responds to those seasonal differences is what “gives us rings”.
…. are all trees rings accepted as good and in
agreement with all others, or are there some that are thought of as
a better read than others with respect to the passage of time? …
Why should there be any difference?
Of course, with all else being equal, the more rings a tree has the more useful (revealing) the data is likely to be -but other than that, no difference.
05 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't believe in dendrochronology?
Good agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other. The main
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true and constant over time and nothing else
affected the things we are measuring. For example tree rings is it
only time that gives us ri ...[text shortened]... nded up
in the hospital all at once, so life has been sort of hectic to say the
least.
Kelly
06 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI believe in the soul, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days...
You don't believe in dendrochronology?
Good Night
07 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy should there be any difference?
[b]…
Good agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other.
..…
So what do you claim they mean by “Good agreement” if it isn’t “with each other”?
….The main
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true a has the more useful (revealing) the data is likely to be -but other than that, no difference.
Of course, with all else being equal, the more rings a tree has the more useful (revealing) the data is likely to be -but other than that, no difference.
[/b]My question to you was are there some trees thought of as better than
others, with respect to their tree rings? I just want to make sure that
tree rings agree with tree rings before we start worrying about if the
tree rings agree with something else. I do believe I have seen some
data on this and will present you with something to look at.
Kelly
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Yes, you said this before and, despite the fact you are not even close to being an expert on physics, you said this about the half-life of radioactive elements even though their half-life is determined by the laws of physics thus making it inexplicable if their half-life changed over time. "
[b]…
Good agreement isn't exactly agreeing with each other.
..…
So what do you claim they mean by “Good agreement” if it isn’t “with each other”?
….The main
issue I have with all dating methods that go beyond our ability to
confirm is that we must use leaps of faith in our assumptions that
all things remain true a has the more useful (revealing) the data is likely to be -but other than that, no difference.
[/b]Never claimed I was an expert on physics; however, having to deal with
processes over time I do understand that if you introduce things into
your processes without tracking them your ablity to understand what
you have at the end of a process and why is hindered due to the
fact that you are not taking everything into account.
Kelly
07 May 09
Unfortunatley these crazy young earth creationists are never going to accept that the world is very old, regardless of how much evidence you present them. All their lives they have been told what to believe from parents, preachers, vicars etc etc and to face the facts late in their life would be like finding out their whole life had been a lie.
A case in point. There's a guy on this website (who i won't name), in his profile it says, devout Christian and Physics teacher at a school. I messaged him during a game once to find out how that realtionship worked. To cut a long story short it turns out he believed in Creationism and that the world was 10,000yrs old, or thereabouts. I put it to him that as a Scientist and a physicist he has learnt that stars are hundreds of millions of light years away and that lthe light from those has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth. That would surelly contradict what it says in the Bible about the Earth being 10,000yrs old.
His reply - 'Yeah, that is a problem'.
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. He then quoted some religious jargon to justify his stance.
This chap knows all the science but yet still believes in the Bible, what hope is there for someone who refuses to believe the science??
07 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhen they say it's science that the earth is 10k years, then I object. If they say that it's my religion, and not science, then I don't object. Thy shouldn't even use the word 'science' until they know what science is.
Unfortunatley these crazy young earth creationists are never going to accept that the world is very old, regardless of how much evidence you present them. All their lives they have been told what to believe from parents, preachers, vicars etc etc and to face the facts late in their life would be like finding out their whole life had been a lie.
A case ...[text shortened]... l believes in the Bible, what hope is there for someone who refuses to believe the science??
There are numerous ways to observe the age of the universe, the age of Earth, and the age of human as a specie. But they hold their hands before their eyes because they don't want to see.
I'm glad that I'm not a fundamental christian. I'm glad that I have my brain intact. I'm glad that I don't need a reprogramming.
07 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…
[b]Why should there be any difference?
Of course, with all else being equal, the more rings a tree has the more useful (revealing) the data is likely to be -but other than that, no difference.
[/b]My question to you was are there some trees thought of as better than
others, with respect to their tree rings? I just want to make sure that
tree rin ...[text shortened]... do believe I have seen some
data on this and will present you with something to look at.
Kelly[/b]
I just want to make sure that
tree rings agree with tree rings before we start worrying about if the
tree rings agree with something else.
..…
Tree rings do agree with tree rings else we would have surely all heard of the “scientific mystery” of the tree rings that contradict and it would be inexplicable if we didn’t. I presume you have no evidence that they do contradict. Now lets us return to the issue of comparing the different dating methods to see if they agree by answering my question:
"…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, changed significantly with time?…"
-and “good agreement” in the above obviously means good agreement “with each other”.
07 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…
[b]"Yes, you said this before and, despite the fact you are not even close to being an expert on physics, you said this about the half-life of radioactive elements even though their half-life is determined by the laws of physics thus making it inexplicable if their half-life changed over time. "
[/b]Never claimed I was an expert on physics; however, ...[text shortened]... s and why is hindered due to the
fact that you are not taking everything into account.
Kelly[/b]
having to deal with
processes over time I do understand that if you introduce THINGS into
your processes without tracking them …
..… (my emphasis)
What kind of “THINGS” are you referring to above that could allow DIFFERENT dating methods to be in good agreement with each other?
Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these “THINGS” that would allow in DIFFERENT dating methods to be in good agreement with each other AND yet make all the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?
-before answering this, note that, for example, any change to the half-life in chemical elements wouldn’t effect the other dating methods other than radiometric dating! -so such an inapplicable thing as the half-life changing (because it would break the laws of physics) would result in DIFFERENT dating methods being NOT in good agreement with each other!
08 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are missing my point!
[b]…
having to deal with
processes over time I do understand that if you introduce THINGS into
your processes without tracking them …
..… (my emphasis)
What kind of “THINGS” are you referring to above that could allow DIFFERENT dating methods to be in good agreement with each other?
Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these ...[text shortened]... f physics) would result in DIFFERENT dating methods being NOT in good agreement with each other![/b]
You are looking at a result, you are looking at a reading you assume that
all things that got us this reading does not in any way shape or form
alter the truth of your assumptions. Let’s look at CPUs for example, over
time with that is suggested as normal use a CPU will degrade, we can also
through stress also get the CPU to appear to have been aged and we can
by this stress look at how the CPU will behave over time. The point being
the behavior of one that was aged through normal use will appear to be
like the one that was drastically stressed, so simply seeing how the CPU
reads out will not really give you a clear vision of how much use the CPU
actually has gone through over time. The readings could be the same, but
you can get there two different ways.
My complaint about time is just we simply do not know over time if what
we are looking at was really caused by just time! I very well could be, but
the reality has to be acknowledge we really do not know for sure if we
intend to be honest about it.
Kelly