Dendrochronology and Young Earth

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _Franktalk »

Chap wrote:From having seen Franktalk put forward his ideas on previous occasions, and from having seen how he reacts to questioning, I have just a smidgeon of a notion which conclusion makes more sense to me.


Then ignore my post and do us both a favor.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _Chap »

Franktalk wrote:
Chap wrote:From having seen Franktalk put forward his ideas on previous occasions, and from having seen how he reacts to questioning, I have just a smidgeon of a notion which conclusion makes more sense to me.


Then ignore my post and do us both a favor.


Naah. You get to post, and I get to sneer at your ignorance whenever I feel like it.

C'mon now. If nobody ever laughed at you, how would you get that delicious persecuted feeling?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _SteelHead »

And yet these left geological records, occurred across geological time frames (millions of years), and do not claim to be global. The same can not be said for the flood of Noah.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_hatersinmyward
_Emeritus
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _hatersinmyward »

Response to OP:

Personally I'm a Theologist.

The "Atom Bomb Effect" states: a large amount of radiation from whatever the source can speed up decay and cause the element tested to date older than it actually is.

Examples: Bodies from the Nuclear Ordinance used in Japan. The human remains tested date older than they are. Since the date of the radiation exposure is known then we know radiation can be a factor.

I think life on Earth could have originated no less than 20,000 years ago according to the "Atom Bomb Effect Theory"
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _moksha »

Equality wrote:
bcspace wrote:Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

Doesn't seem to be the case:
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.7?lang=eng#6


Thankfully, as Bc has pointed out, we are not bound to a faulty understanding when new light and knowledge via science enters the world.

Image

You can look to the religious influences of Zoroaster Granite and Vishnu Schist when discussing a more accurate geologic dating scale.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _Franktalk »

SteelHead wrote:And yet these left geological records, occurred across geological time frames (millions of years), and do not claim to be global. The same can not be said for the flood of Noah.


I make no claim to the age of the various planated surfaces. I have not studied these events enough to hold an opinion on them. I am just being a parrot and relaying what I have read. I only give this out to show that many people have tunnel vision when it comes to large scale geologic events.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _Uncle Dale »

hatersinmyward wrote:Response to OP:

Personally I'm a Theologist.

The "Atom Bomb Effect" states: a large amount of radiation from whatever the source can speed up decay and cause the element tested to date older than it actually is.

Examples: Bodies from the Nuclear Ordinance used in Japan. The human remains tested date older than they are. Since the date of the radiation exposure is known then we know radiation can be a factor.

I think life on Earth could have originated no less than 20,000 years ago according to the "Atom Bomb Effect Theory"


So then -- if I were to drill into the Greenland icepack, or
into the Antarctic ice, 20,001 strata bands downward, and there
happen upon a fragment of preserved pollen, I'd know that my
counting of the "years" indicated by the ice was wrong?

But if I found that same pollen grain trapped in the layer that
I calculated to be 19,999 years old, that would be permissible?

Nice to know that -- I'll keep mention of it in my wallet, so I
can pull it out and refute the next paleoclimetologist that tries
to convince me that there was life on the planet 20,001 years ago.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_hatersinmyward
_Emeritus
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _hatersinmyward »

Uncle Dale wrote:
So then -- if I were to drill into the Greenland icepack, or
into the Antarctic ice, 20,001 strata bands downward, and there
happen upon a fragment of preserved pollen, I'd know that my
counting of the "years" indicated by the ice was wrong?


If you have access to 20,000 y/o records.

But if I found that same pollen grain trapped in the layer that
I calculated to be 19,999 years old, that would be permissible?


I don't think 2 years is going to matter all that much.

Nice to know that -- I'll keep mention of it in my wallet, so I
can pull it out and refute the next paleoclimetologist that tries
to convince me that there was life on the planet 20,001 years ago.


Be sure keep a note in your wallet for future archeologists that may test human remains exposed to high level radiation in Japan while you're at it.

On a side note; did you know red clay has been proven the most effective compound when synthesizing artificial life?... Mars is composed primarily of red sediment. Just wanted to throw that out there.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _huckelberry »

Franktalk wrote:If you do the hard work of finding out how long whole continents erode away then you will question why most of the sediments found on those same continents are classified very old. If indeed whole continents erode away in 20 or 30 million years why do we have soil that is hundreds of millions of years old? If indeed subduction recycles the soils then why do we find fossils in the soil? Should it all have washed out to sea some time ago?


I can see your point about subduction. It would melt fossils leaving something like the basalt I live on top of. However subduction is not the primary process of building up continents. That is why continents have both igneous and sedimentary rocks.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Dendrochronology and Young Earth

Post by _DrW »

hatersinmyward wrote:Response to OP:

Personally I'm a Theologist.

The "Atom Bomb Effect" states: a large amount of radiation from whatever the source can speed up decay and cause the element tested to date older than it actually is.

Examples: Bodies from the Nuclear Ordinance used in Japan. The human remains tested date older than they are. Since the date of the radiation exposure is known then we know radiation can be a factor.

I think life on Earth could have originated no less than 20,000 years ago according to the "Atom Bomb Effect Theory"

This is a joke, right?

By citing the "atom bomb effect" you are clearly referring to the slight increase in carbon-14 (and hence in the C-14 / C-12 ratio) in the biosphere as a result of modern nuclear explosions. Perhaps you are unaware that this is a very small perturbation that affects only radiocarbon dating techniques and can be compensated for by the use of new reference standards.

You also seem to be unaware that radiocarbon dating is only useful for organic materials and is limited as to how far into the past it can provide accurate dating (thousands or tens of thousands of years). Therefore, radiocarbon dating would not be useful to determine the age of the Earth, which is billions of years old.

Also, if you thought about it, you might ask yourself how radiation (from whatever source) could affect dating based on any of the other dating methods such as stratigraphy.

As just me has pointed out, science deniers armed with a few facts (and inadequate understanding) can come up with their own unfounded reasons to believe that one or two dating methods may be in error. They cannot possibly come up with reasons (even in their wildest imaginings) why all of the dating methods would be wrong, and why all of them would indicate an Earth many orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.

With regard to stratigraphy, one time base I have not seen mentioned on these recurring Young Earth science denier threads is the Iridium layer. If you are really interested in the truth instead of your theologically motivated bs theories, you should google the "Iridium layer", the "Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary" and the "KT extinction" (all well recorded epochs or events in the geological record), and see how your Young Earth theories can handle these data sets.

Remember, theories are evaluated according to their explanatory and predictive power. Scientific theories and dating methods exhibit these characteristics, and are in very good agreement as to the age of the Earth, and the Universe.

On the other hand, theologically based theories have no explanatory power and cannot be used as a basis to accurately determine the age of physical artifacts or events.

Like Franktalk, perhaps you should take a few minutes and think before you come out with this kind of nonsense on a public forum. Like Franktalk, you seem to have an uncritical willingness to believe what you read on Christian creationist websites. Regardless of your motivations or level of understanding, such a display of gullibility seems kind of embarrassing for an adult.

__________________

(Little known fact: Motorola named its Iridium satellite phone system after the Iridium layer because, like the Iridium layer, it covers the entire Earth.)
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply