18 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe started this debate agreeing we would look at some of the examples
Correct -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?
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?
of good agreement and what did you ask me to look at first, tree rings
and I found that tree rings have several reasons for being, they are not
a good examples of time on its own so why should I care if you want to
lump it with something else? I may as well say bunny rabbit hairs are a
good measure of time, it doesn't matter that bunny rabbit hair numbers
have nothing to do with time, I still want to make the claim.
Kelly
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayHow does this answer my last question?
We started this debate agreeing we would look at some of the examples
of good agreement and what did you ask me to look at first, tree rings
and I found that tree rings have several reasons for being, they are not
a good examples of time on its own so why should I care if you want to
lump it with something else? I may as well say bunny rabbit hairs are bunny rabbit hair numbers
have nothing to do with time, I still want to make the claim.
Kelly
Reminder:
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
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayDdV asked a very simple genuine question that you haven’t answered:
I'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
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
Do you dispute that different dating methods are generally in good agreement with each other?
…I'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
we can start worrying about does it matter if they agree with something
ELSE.
..… (my emphasis)
“agree with something ELSE”? is it so painful for you to admit that they “agree with EACH OTHER”?
Why try and avoid the issue of them agree with each other by insisting on only looking at each one by itself rather than look at the whole picture? -answer, you cannot account for WHY they would agree with each other if all the dating methods are giving completely wrong dates most of the time.
18 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe answer is who cares if they agree if they are strongly suspected of
How does this answer my last question?
Reminder:
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?
being wrong! You think adding tree rings to the mix as a support for
beliefs is strong evidence of a dating method agreeing with another
knowing that the environment not time is responsible for producing
many of the rings? If so it looks like to me you are bound and
determined to see what it is you want to see even if it isn’t in front of
you.
Kelly
18 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayTree rings don't give a 100% accuracy of dating, but they give a rough idea of how old a tree is. Lets say a tree has 400 rings, as we know due to seasonal differences a tree may not always produce a ring, or may produce an extra. But the 400 rings suggest that the tree is around 400yrs old. If then through radio carbon dating, the wood from the tree is dated to around 350-400yrs old, we can assume the tree is around 375yrs old.
The answer is who cares if they agree if they are strongly suspected of
being wrong! You think adding tree rings to the mix as a support for
beliefs is strong evidence of a dating method agreeing with another
knowing that the environment not time is responsible for producing
many of the rings? If so it looks like to me you are bound and
determined to see what it is you want to see even if it isn’t in front of
you.
Kelly
Simple logic my friend.
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo they do not give 100% accuracy of dating, and many times over do not
Tree rings don't give a 100% accuracy of dating, but they give a rough idea of how old a tree is. Lets say a tree has 400 rings, as we know due to seasonal differences a tree may not always produce a ring, or may produce an extra. But the 400 rings suggest that the tree is around 400yrs old. If then through radio carbon dating, the wood from the tree is ...[text shortened]... around 350-400yrs old, we can assume the tree is around 375yrs old.
Simple logic my friend.
have a thing to do with time which has been my point! You assume a great
deal with your tree ring example and that is all you have are assumptions
not facts! Your 400 rings could have been caused by several different
factors again, none time! As such you may as well throw chicken bones
on an animal skin and read those.
Kelly
18 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe can confirm radio carbon with historical records to prove them out in
Tree rings don't give a 100% accuracy of dating, but they give a rough idea of how old a tree is. Lets say a tree has 400 rings, as we know due to seasonal differences a tree may not always produce a ring, or may produce an extra. But the 400 rings suggest that the tree is around 400yrs old. If then through radio carbon dating, the wood from the tree is ...[text shortened]... around 350-400yrs old, we can assume the tree is around 375yrs old.
Simple logic my friend.
the short term time frames; however, beyond that no so much.
Kelly
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…The answer is who cares if they agree if they are strongly suspected of
The answer is who cares if they agree if they are strongly suspected of
being wrong! You think adding tree rings to the mix as a support for
beliefs is strong evidence of a dating method agreeing with another
knowing that the environment not time is responsible for producing
many of the rings? If so it looks like to me you are bound and
determined to see what it is you want to see even if it isn’t in front of
you.
Kelly
being WRING!
..… (my emphasis)
When you say “WRONG”, do you mean that they are not infinitely accurate or do you mean they don’t even generally give even a good approximation of the dates? -nobody is disputing the fact that they are not infinitely accurate here and that isn’t our point. Our point is that even with the occasional inaccuracies they are still generally a good approximation of the dates as proven by the fact that they are in general good agreement with each other.
-if what you mean by “WRONG”, is that they are not even a good approximation of the dates then WHO “strongly suspected of being WRING” (as you said above) ? Creationists? -certainly not most of the scientists that work with the dates.
….who cares if they agree
...…
-anyone who cares to know the truth of their reliability as an estimate of dates for if they are in general good agreement then that vindicates them all as being reasonably good estimates of the dates -they cannot ALL be completely wrong estimates and yet all agree!!!
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…No they do not give 100% accuracy of dating, and many times over do not
No they do not give 100% accuracy of dating, and many times over do not
have a thing to do with time which has been my point! You assume a great
deal with your tree ring example and that is all you have are assumptions
not facts! Your 400 rings could have been caused by several different
factors again, none time! As such you may as well throw chicken bones
on an animal skin and read those.
Kelly
have a thing to do with time which has been my POINT!
..… (my emphasis)
It is an irrelevant “POINT” for it isn’t our position that they are always 100% accurate.
It is position that they are a good estimate most of the time.
-and certainly good enough to rule out the possibility that the Earth can be less than a million years old!
18 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay….however, beyond that no so much
We can confirm radio carbon with historical records to prove them out in
the short term time frames; however, beyond that no so much.
Kelly
...…
What would the need of confirm radio carbon further back than that when the half-life of chemical elements are determined by the laws of physics?
Explain to us how can the half-life of chemical elements can credibly vary with time (as you suggested in another post) when their half-life is determined by the laws of physics? -answer, you cannot.
-exactly what physical mechanism could cause such a change?
18 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay-just noticed something new from that remark:
We can confirm radio carbon with historical records to prove them out in
the short term time frames; however, beyond that no so much.
Kelly
As you admit there that “We can confirm radio carbon with historical records to prove them out in the short term time frames”, surely you must also admit that “We can confirm tree ring data with historical records to prove them out in the short term time frames”.
But what you imply by “however, beyond that no so much.” is that they credibly could be significantly less accurate before the first relevant historical records -but exactly WHAT could have change between any time period before the date of the first relevant historical records to after the date of the first relevant historical records to make them significantly less accurate before but much more accurate afterwards?
-now you already answered this for carbon dating: you said that the half-life changes which is absurd because that would brake the laws of physics (which you don’t understand so your claim is baseless). But what about your answer for tree ring dating? exactly WHAT could have change between any time period before the date of the first relevant historical records to after the date of the first relevant historical records to make the tree ring significantly less accurate before but much more accurate afterwards?
Would you claim that the tree rings always grow more ‘randomly’ before that date but decided to become more ‘predictable’ after that date? -if so, exactly what could cause this reduction in randomness? -give us just one specific example.
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Your 400 rings could have been caused by several different
No they do not give 100% accuracy of dating, and many times over do not
have a thing to do with time which has been my point! You assume a great
deal with your tree ring example and that is all you have are assumptions
not facts! Your 400 rings could have been caused by several different
factors again, none time! As such you may as well throw chicken bones
on an animal skin and read those.
Kelly
factors again, none time!
..…
I told you this twice before but:
NOBODY IS CLAIMING HERE THAT TIME ITSELF LITERALLY CAUSES THINGS TO CHANGE.
Get it?
-Yes tree rings could have been and often have been caused by several different factors, but the fact remains that MOST of the time the main things effecting them are just seasonal changes in the weather.
Modern digital watches use a vibrating quartz crystal to measure time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_clock#Mechanism
The vibration rate of this quartz crystal is, just like tree rings, caused by several different factors such as temperature. But, just as the main factor that effects tree ring formation is seasonal changes in the weather, the main factor that effects vibration rate of this quartz crystal is certain physical properties of the quartz crystal which, like the yearly weather cycles, generally don’t change much with time. And, just like the tree rings, time itself doesn’t effect it -it isn’t literally correct to say “time causes it to vibrate at a constant rate” because time itself doesn’t literally cause such things and nobody here is claiming that it does! -for that isn’t and never was our position!
As a result, modern digital watches, just like tree ring data, don’t give an infinitely accurate measure of the passage of time and nobody ever claimed either of them do -but, just like tree ring data, they can generally give a pretty good estimate most of the time. Would you deny this?
18 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you question doctors medical science when you have to go the hospital? Or are you safe in the knowledge that they are trained professionals who know what they are doing?
No they do not give 100% accuracy of dating, and many times over do not
have a thing to do with time which has been my point! You assume a great
deal with your tree ring example and that is all you have are assumptions
not facts! Your 400 rings could have been caused by several different
factors again, none time! As such you may as well throw chicken bones
on an animal skin and read those.
Kelly
When you turn your computer on do you ring up the national grid and question them about the science behind powering a whole country? Or do you turn on your computer safe in the knowledge that they are trained professionals?
If you can accept the science mentioned above, what's the big deal with the science behind dating evidence?
19 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf you have half a brain you get 2nd opinions, so yes! You just accept what
Do you question doctors medical science when you have to go the hospital? Or are you safe in the knowledge that they are trained professionals who know what they are doing?
When you turn your computer on do you ring up the national grid and question them about the science behind powering a whole country? Or do you turn on your computer safe in the kno ...[text shortened]... ccept the science mentioned above, what's the big deal with the science behind dating evidence?
everyone tells you, if you don't question your drinking the Kolaid.
Kelly