Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_Franktalk]

Drifting,

Your attempt to divert the issue is clear. I can also list many links that mean nothing. I will show you an example.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml

Read away but you will not find a thing that I am talking about.

http://csharp.com/creationism.html

The hydroplate theory. Again a diversion.

http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html

More of the same.

So me making a list does nothing to bring real data to the question. So your attempt just makes you look incredibly stupid.

[_DrW]

Can you see the problems with your question yet?

I have heard you and others say that many methods of dating all show the same thing. All I am asking is that erosion be included in that list of verifications. If however you can't find such a study then I think we have to ask why?

There is no problem with my question, there is however a problem with your answer.

Franktalk,

Since it appears that you cannot see the logical problem with your question, I will try once more. (Please note that this response includes a recent paper in Nature as a reference.)

An erosion-only based dating study of a given landmass, such as you asked me to find for you, could only be evaluated as to its meaning or validity by comparison of the results obtained to those provided by radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.

Otherwise, one gets into the problem that young Earth creationists get into with dating, and that is failure to use proper metrics (or common sense, logic or the slightest bit of analytical skill, for that matter).

Claiming that the Grand Canyon, for example, is only tens of thousands of years old because that is the age you get from the use of your favorite erosion rate numbers (while ignoring stratigraphy and radiometric data) is like claiming your car has gone 100,000 miles just because you have put $5,000 worth of gas in it.

Someone using better logic and analytical skills might want to consider the average price per gallon of gas over the time the car has been driven - or better yet, they may want to check the odometer - before making such a claim.

I trust that you can now see the problem with your question. If not, then I can't help you (nor, it would appear, can anyone else here).
________________________________

Yet more problems for the creationists:

Recently reported (2010) data from high precision isotopic ratio measurements on materials from a meteor fall in Africa is allowing million year adjustments to the determined 4.5 billion year age of the solar system, and these adjustments are tending to increase the age the solar system.

Nature Geoscience 3, 637 - 641 (2010)

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Claiming that the Grand Canyon, for example, is only tens of thousands of years old because that is the age you get from the use of your favorite erosion rate numbers (while ignoring stratigraphy and radiometric data) is like claiming your car has gone 100,000 miles just because you have put $5,000 worth of gas in it.
...

Another "erosion" example worth looking at is the Kali-Gandaki Gorge, through which
one of the major tributaries of the Ganges flows. This geomorphological wonder is
deeper than the Grand Canyon.

On the mountaintops flanking both sides of the gorge, trekkers can dig huge ammonites
from the rocks -- ancient seabed fossils, which give an indication of how long ago
the strata of those same mountaintops (and their fossil-laden flanks) were born of
primeval mud, that once accumulated deep under water.

The Gandaki River cuts THROUGH the Himalayas -- a seeming impossibility, and a fact
cited by some young earthers as a proof for (1) Noah's flood, or (2) that God must
have created the canyon, in-place, as it now exists.

However, the uplift of the entire Himalayan range and the Tibetan Plateau to the
north, can easily be explained by continental plate dynamics. The river did NOT
cut through the mountains -- the mountains slowly rose up, allowing the river
sufficient time to carve a deep gorge through the relatively soft sedimentary rock.

The uplift is still going on -- Mount Everest rises a little more each century. And
the erosion is still going on -- the Gandaki River is still cutting through old seabeds
and has yet to expose igneous/metamorphic base strata.

I should know -- my wife and I used to live there.

Uncle Dale

[_DrW]

Perhaps Franktalk missed the images of marine fossil beds at 6,000 feet in the mountains and far from the sea that I posted on this board a few months ago (see below).

These are an embarrassment to the local Muslim creationists and stand as strong evidence that against young Earth creationists nonsense in general.





Ancient Arab village at about 6,000 feet in elevation in Oman.






Example of a fish fossil in a marine fossil bed - just one of several strata of marine fossils at this elevation.

[_Themis]

You are going to have to be much more specific in what you are asking, and maybe start dealing for once with these multiple dating methods many of which are independent of other methods. This is an area I still think you miss the significance of, but then your agenda is clear here.

Before radiometric dating erosion was used by geology to determine age. Surely the field of geology used erosion and radiometric methods to check each method against each other. Why would a science jump to new methods without some kind of verification? All I am asking is a link to that study which shows that the two agree with each other. If however you can't find a study then I must ask the obvious question as to why? This is not rocket science Themis. Either supply a link to the study or explain why it is missing. Arm waving and name calling is not an answer. DrW does all that so you don't have to.

Again be specific in what erosion methods you are referring to. Also I have already brought up the mid-Atlantic ridge and several dating methods and have yet to see you address this. The problem here again is your agenda to attack science(which doesn't state to be perfect) in order to propose your obviously wrong beliefs as just as valid.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Mount Everest rises a little more each century.
...

Of course nobody can irrefutably confirm that the Himalayas are
rising at a constant rate, and have been uplifted at a constant rate
for many millions of years.

But what we can do, is to measure the current uplift rate atop
Mt. Everest (as a convenient surrogate for the entire range) and
compile that precise elevation data as far back as we have reliable
records (a couple of decades) and compare the documented change
to the estimated change rate (from less accurate data) throughout
the 20th century.

We can then extrapolate backwards, from the estimated uplift rate, to
determine how far back in time those ammonite fossils (and many other
archaic lifeform artifacts) were at sea-level, or below.

If anybody is coming up with a figure of 10,000 years or less, they may
wish to claim a Nobel Prize in Geology.

Those calculators whose estimations add up to many millions of years
will just have to take their place in line, behind thousands of other
scientists who have refuted the young earth claims.

UD

[_Franktalk]

Those calculators whose estimations add up to many millions of years
will just have to take their place in line, behind thousands of other
scientists who have refuted the young earth claims.

UD

Please point to a link where I can find the detailed analysis of those mountains based on erosion. If you can then that is great I will be happy to read the detail. But if this is but another opinion piece with arm waving then you have wasted my time. I am not hung up on any age. I just want independent verification of radiometric dating. It is that simple. Can you do that or do we get another round of arm waving and opinions?

[_Uncle Dale]

Those calculators whose estimations add up to many millions of years
will just have to take their place in line, behind thousands of other
scientists who have refuted the young earth claims.

UD

Please point to a link where I can find the detailed analysis of those mountains based on erosion. If you can then that is great I will be happy to read the detail. But if this is but another opinion piece with arm waving then you have wasted my time. I am not hung up on any age. I just want independent verification of radiometric dating. It is that simple. Can you do that or do we get another round of arm waving and opinions?

I don't have the link, but I suggest that you contact
the Director of the Indian Institute of Geomorphologists,
at the University of Allahabad; Uttar Pradesh, India.

One of these three fellows should be able to help you:
http://allduniv.academia.edu/Department ... Geophysics

Members of the I.I.G. have produced papers and publications
on the subject, and somebody on the staff can direct you to
a bibliography of the relevant peer-reviewed scholarly literature,
in English and Hindi.

UD

[_Franktalk]

An erosion-only based dating study of a given landmass, such as you asked me to find for you, could only be evaluated as to its meaning or validity by comparison of the results obtained to those provided by radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.

So we must use radiometrics to verify radiometrics. One heck of a science you have there. So what did science do before radiometrics?

It must be frustrating to you to deal with someone who just doesn't understand how factual science is at this date. I mean the nerve of someone to actually ask that some method of science be proven by alternative methods. That must be the stupidest thing you have heard in decades. But I am sure that if some scientist came up with a new way to date rocks that you would require a detailed verification with radiometrics before you would trust that new method. So I am only asking what you yourself would demand. Now if you can not see the logic in alternative method verification and it does not bother you that you are unable to find what I have asked for then just admit that you are unable to find the research I asked for. Why are you making this so complicated?

You can not find it on the web can you. Sure would be simple if you could. But then again I already knew you would not find it. I always thought science was proud of the fact that scientist check each other. Where is the check on radiometric methods? Or do we advance science with a wink and a nod these days.

[_Franktalk]

I don't have the link, but I suggest that you contact
the Director of the Indian Institute of Geomorphologists,
at the University of Allahabad; Uttar Pradesh, India.

UD

Thank you for your response. But I am seeking a study that is already done. If I contact someone in the field they will say it is a waste of time to verify radiometric results because we all know they are valid. That is what they were taught in school. But what I want to know is when radiometric methods were first introduced who verified the method and where is that study? A simple question that so far seems impossible to answer.