16 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I would like dating methods to at least have something
Exact no, however I would like dating methods to at least have something
to do with time, that would be helpful.
Kelly
to do with time,
..…
Like annual rings in trees?
Or annual layers of sedimentary rock?
Or annual layers of ice?
Or the half-life of chemical elements?
Sometimes the observed layers are not annual but usually they are most of the time as shown by the fact that all these dating methods have been cross-referenced and found to be in general good agreement with each other.
On the occasions when the observed layers are not annual, it is possible to determine when they are not annual by, for example, cross-referencing them with other dating methods thus we can take fully into account when they are not annual when estimating a date thus this isn’t a significant problem. Note that the half-life of chemical elements doesn’t even have this miner problem as the half-life of chemical elements is determined by the laws of physics and dating using the half-life of chemical elements is in general good agreement with other dating methods thus vindicating other dating methods. -so what’s the problem? (I already know the answer to this)
16 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSticking with tree rings the topic you picked, we know it isn't time related
[b]…I would like dating methods to at least have something
to do with time,
..…
Like annual rings in trees?
Or annual layers of sedimentary rock?
Or annual layers of ice?
Or the half-life of chemical elements?
Sometimes the observed layers are not annual but usually they are most of the time as shown by the fact that all these da ...[text shortened]... take fully into account when they are not annual when estimating a date -so what’s the problem?[/b]
I pointed out why that was, yet you still grasp for that as if it is gospel,
what is that?
Kelly
16 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…we know it isn't time related
Sticking with tree rings the topic you picked, we know it isn't time related
I pointed out why that was, yet you still grasp for that as if it is gospel,
what is that?
Kelly
I pointed out why that was,
..…
“It isn’t time related” how often? (answer, certainly not often enough to make it no longer in general good agreement with other dating methods) And to what extent? (answer, certainly not enough to make it no longer in general good agreement with other dating methods)
-tree ring dating vindicated!
16 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSupport that please! How do you know! What about those rings can you
[b]…we know it isn't time related
I pointed out why that was,
..…
“It isn’t time related” how often? (answer, certainly not often enough to make it no longer in general good agreement with other dating methods) And to what extent? (answer, certainly not enough to make it no longer in general good agreement with other dating methods)
-tree ring dating vindicated![/b]
tell us about that has to do with time and not the other reasons rings
appear? If you cannot with data support your claim than the only thing
you got is a lot of rings there for a lot of different reasons, because of that
your going to use them for a counter of time no matter what, be they time
related or not.
Kelly
16 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI am not related to time and I can tell time just fine.
Support that please! How do you know! What about those rings can you
tell us about that has to do with time and not the other reasons rings
appear? If you cannot with data support your claim than the only thing
you got is a lot of rings there for a lot of different reasons, because of that
your going to use them for a counter of time no matter what, be they time
related or not.
Kelly
Point: just because something doesn't occur solely because of time doesn't mean it cannot be used to measure time.
The earth revolving around the sun doesn't occur BECAUSE 365.25 days have passed but it does happen to revolve around the sun in that time. So we can say with a measure of accuracy that 365.25 days have passed once the earth has made a complete revolution around the earth. Tree rings don't occur BECAUSE a year has gone by but the generally do occur annualy.
16 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…SUPPORT that please! How do you KNOW!
Support that please! How do you know! What about those rings can you
tell us about that has to do with time and not the other reasons rings
appear? If you cannot with data support your claim than the only thing
you got is a lot of rings there for a lot of different reasons, because of that
your going to use them for a counter of time no matter what, be they time
related or not.
Kelly
..… (my emphasis)
How do I KNOW what exactly?
For a start I am NOT claiming that time itself is causing the tree rings (I said this before) and I didn’t ever say/imply that it did in my last post nor anywhere else.
The statements “related to time“ or “time related” are a bit vague so for now on I will try to remember not to use them again (“related“ how?).
I AM claiming that you can often get a good estimate of a date by counting tree rings etc.
The fact that you CAN get a good estimate of a date by counting tree rings is verified by the fact that other DIFFERENT dating methods are in general good agreement with tree dating -that’s how I KNOW that and I have already given a link to SUPPORT the notion that different dating methods are in good agreement with each other and that includes tree rings.
17 May 09
Originally posted by tomtom232That is right, tree rings do not appear because a year has gone past, if you
I am not related to time and I can tell time just fine.
Point: just because something doesn't occur solely because of time doesn't mean it cannot be used to measure time.
The earth revolving around the sun doesn't occur BECAUSE 365.25 days have passed but it does happen to revolve around the sun in that time. So we can say with a measure of accuracy ...[text shortened]... earth. Tree rings don't occur BECAUSE a year has gone by but the generally do occur annualy.
have read the points I brought up you'd see they do it, BECAUSE of other
factors such as temp, soil, wind, and other factors! None of those are as
predictable as something near constant as the earth turning or going
around the sun. Your use of tree rings to measure something that is
constant as the amount of time that passes because the earth went
around the sun is comparing apples to oranges.
Kelly
17 May 09
Originally posted by tomtom232I am not related to time and I can tell time just fine.
I am not related to time and I can tell time just fine.
Point: just because something doesn't occur solely because of time doesn't mean it cannot be used to measure time.
The earth revolving around the sun doesn't occur BECAUSE 365.25 days have passed but it does happen to revolve around the sun in that time. So we can say with a measure of accuracy ...[text shortened]... earth. Tree rings don't occur BECAUSE a year has gone by but the generally do occur annualy.
What?
Kelly
17 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea, I know you have said you can get a good estimate of time by looking
[b]…SUPPORT that please! How do you KNOW!
..… (my emphasis)
How do I KNOW what exactly?
For a start I am NOT claiming that time itself is causing the tree rings (I said this before) and I didn’t ever say/imply that it did in my last post nor anywhere else.
The statements “related to time“ or “time related” are a bit vague so for now on I ...[text shortened]... hat different dating methods are in good agreement with each other and that includes tree rings.[/b]
at something that does not have anything to do with time, nor is it
constant neither is it consistent since it is not affected the same way over
time, because of the large variety of things that can alter it. Yet when you
look at it you can see a good estimate of a date by counting the rings.
Kelly
17 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySay a tree has 8 billion rings. That means we estimate it be 8 billion years old. Now, even if 500 million of those rings occurred inside the same year as another ring it still wouldn't matter... The tree is still about 8 billion years old.
That is right, tree rings do not appear because a year has gone past, if you
have read the points I brought up you'd see they do it, BECAUSE of other
factors such as temp, soil, wind, and other factors! None of those are as
predictable as something near constant as the earth turning or going
around the sun. Your use of tree rings to measure something th ...[text shortened]... time that passes because the earth went
around the sun is comparing apples to oranges.
Kelly
(I know trees don't live that long, it was just an example)
17 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI've been following this thread for a while, and I've been tempted a few times to jump in. This time I'm just going to do that. I'm wondering: do you dispute that different dating methods are generally in good agreement with each other?
Yea, I know you have said you can get a good estimate of time by looking
at something that does not have anything to do with time, nor is it
constant neither is it consistent since it is not affected the same way over
time, because of the large variety of things that can alter it. Yet when you
look at it you can see a good estimate of a date by counting the rings.
Kelly
David
17 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCorrect -that is because the evidence says they are a good estimate most of the time as shown, in part, by the fact that they are in general good agreement with other completely different dating methods. So what’s the problem?
Yea, I know you have said you can get a good estimate of time by looking
at something that does not have anything to do with time, nor is it
constant neither is it consistent since it is not affected the same way over
time, because of the large variety of things that can alter it. Yet when you
look at it you can see a good estimate of a date by counting the rings.
Kelly
How do you account for why they are in general good agreement with other completely different dating methods if you claim they are generally untrustworthy?
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232You are again using rings to mean something other than what they mean
Say a tree has 8 billion rings. That means we estimate it be 8 billion years old. Now, even if 500 million of those rings occurred inside the same year as another ring it still wouldn't matter... The tree is still about 8 billion years old.
(I know trees don't live that long, it was just an example)
which is you are saying rings mean time, they do not, it is as simple as
that! You can have rings appear for numberous reasons, and you can have
rings not appear when people think they should, rings are not a good
example of time since they are generated by something other than time
so many times over.
Kelly
18 May 09
Originally posted by DdVI'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
I've been following this thread for a while, and I've been tempted a few times to jump in. This time I'm just going to do that. I'm wondering: do you dispute that different dating methods are generally in good agreement with each other?
David
we can start worrying about does it matter if they agree with something
else. As with the tree ring example there are more to tree rings than
people let on about, yet they still use it as an example to suggest good
agreement.
Kelly