Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_Themis]

Perhaps you'll agree -- but many people (including ignorant folks
living right here beside me on the Big Island) say Science is wrong,
and that God created the earth and these islands in six days.

Magic. It's the answer to everything.

[_Franktalk]

I do not think there is any reason to think continents hold their shape, but then you add sort of so it is hard to know what you mean. Do you mean they remain rock above sea level in some sort of clump formation? I suppose they remain something like that. In that case it does not matter that ours used to end along the Idaho west border. The area I live in, Washington is a new add on along with substantial other western portions of North America.

I think it is true that not all of the processes of continent movement and building are understood. Some general ideas are. First continents are very deep and have a lot of rock which can be raised up as surface layers are removed by erosion. Second eroded material does not leave but remains near at hand for future compaction to continents. Third the earth is an enclosed fluid with a crust floating on top. Where weight presses down in one area pressure is exerted in response lifting up lighter areas.

There are many processes involved and a lot of guesswork. Let me just point out just one area that does not make much sense to me. We have observed the mid-Atlantic ridge and see it is still active. So we assume that the Atlantic sea floor is spreading. But just where is the spreading going? We do not have subduction on the East Coast of the United States and West Coast of Europe. So it appears to me that the ridge and the sea floor along with the United States is spreading into the Pacific plate. We do have evidence of subduction in the West Coast of North and South America. So with this in mind we should find that the sea floor of the Pacific is ancient since this spreading has been going on for time. From what I have found the sediments on the floor of the Pacific are not old enough. These forces could also account for the rise in the middle of the United States. Yet they are slow and erosion is lowering the Mississippi drainage system. Anyway just things I ponder when I study the earths history.

[Guest]

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.

Would you please point me to a detailed age determination of any major land mass which uses erosion as its method and not radiometric processes. I seem to be unable to find one in my searches. I would like to be educated like you.

If radiometric methods (and there are several of them, including isotopic ratio variants) are internally consistent, even when extended to extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites, then why would one not depend on them as the best method of determining the age of the Earth?

Why would one not use these methods as a standard to cross- calibrate with other methods such as erosion and sedimentation?

This being the case, what difference would it make whether or not there was a detailed erosion- only based age determination of a given land mass?

One of the first things one would do, once they had made such an erosion-only based determination, would be to compare their results to the available radiometric data for the same landmass. In fact, it is doubtful that such a study would be published in the peer reviewed literature without such a comparison having been made.

Can you see the problems with your question yet?

[_Themis]

There are many processes involved and a lot of guesswork. Let me just point out just one area that does not make much sense to me. We have observed the mid-Atlantic ridge and see it is still active. So we assume that the Atlantic sea floor is spreading.

They don't assume it is spreading. They have observed that it is spreading and that the continents are moving. They also date the with several different dating methods the age of the sea floor. It's gets older the farther you get from the mid Atlantic ridge. This really is some very basic stuff. Are you really wanting to suggest the spreading is less then about 4-6 thousands years ago?

But just where is the spreading going?

Seriously?

We do not have subduction on the East Coast of the United States and West Coast of Europe. So it appears to me that the ridge and the sea floor along with the United States is spreading into the Pacific plate.

Don't forget the rest of the America's. We see evidence for this from Volcanic activity along the pacific rim but don't see the same thing on the coast of the Atlantic.

We do have evidence of subduction in the West Coast of North and South America. So with this in mind we should find that the sea floor of the Pacific is ancient since this spreading has been going on for time. From what I have found the sediments on the floor of the Pacific are not old enough. These forces could also account for the rise in the middle of the United States. Yet they are slow and erosion is lowering the Mississippi drainage system. Anyway just things I ponder when I study the earths history.

There are plenty of questions to answer in many sciences. This does not mean we don't have a good idea about many things that are going on. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is astronomically older then thousands of years, unless you want to play the magic card, but then you have to ask why God would create so much evidence against the biblical claims.

[_Franktalk]

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.

[_just me]

Franktalk, could you give me some examples of the historical record that backs up the Bible? I would like Old Testament examples, of course. I would also like to know what dating methods were used to make the match...

I will give you one. The Assyrian empire and city of Nineveh is mentioned many times in the Bible. The names of Kings and the conflict with surrounding peoples goes on until they are wiped out by the Babylonians in 612 BC. Now other historical writers also wrote of Nineveh as well. But the city of Nineveh was buried and lost to man. Many people believed in the city but no one could go there and touch it. Some people said the whole story of Nineveh was made up and the Assyrians never existed. Some people require that they be able to touch the wounds of Jesus before they will believe as well. The lost city was found in the 1840's.

Here is a history of the city.

http://history-world.org/nineveh.htm

and it being found

http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/article ... rd.03.html

Layard wrote an interesting book about his discoveries.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HwwYAA ... &q&f=false

The important thing to consider is that many things described in historical records are lost forever. We are lucky to find what we do. Even when we do find objects some will destroy them because of their beliefs.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ib ... -pyramids/

So what we must ask our self is just what does it take to believe? If indeed the pyramids are destroyed will future generations think of them as myth because they can no longer touch them. If indeed one day an evil man takes over the world and destroys all historical records will that destroy the past or just how we feel about it? Knowing what I do about how records are held and the agendas involved in making them I am amazed we have what we have. So to look for fine detail in something that happened thousands of year ago is asking a lot. Be happy with what we have and rest your faith not in rocks and statues but instead hold on to what your heart knows is true.

How does a city existing prove the Bible theology/mythology? It doesn't. I could write a story set in a real city and it doesn't make my story historically accurate, let alone theologically accurate.

by the way, people have a long history of destroying books, records and artifacts. It's what people do. It doesn't make them "evil."

My heart knows that the god described in the Bible is a false god. Praise!

[_Themis]

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.

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.

[_Franktalk]

How does a city existing prove the Bible theology/mythology? It doesn't. I could write a story set in a real city and it doesn't make my story historically accurate, let alone theologically accurate.

by the way, people have a long history of destroying books, records and artifacts. It's what people do. It doesn't make them "evil."

My heart knows that the god described in the Bible is a false god. Praise!

Your question concerned history. That is what I posted. If you have faith in a God that is not found in the Bible I have no problem with that.

[_Franktalk]

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.

[_Drifting]

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.

Courtesy of 'Hans'....

There are a number of weaknesses in this argument. First of all, the amount of sediment in the world is much higher. Large parts of the land masses, and also parts of the ocean floor rock consist of sediment. We have whole mountain ranges that consist mostly of sediment, not to mention large sediment plains.

Creationist acknowledgement of the prevalence of sedimentary formation: http://www.allaboutc...t-flood-faq.htm
Classification of sedimentary rocks: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soi ... edimentary
Geological world map; this is a commercial site, but the preview is quite useful: http://ccgm.free.fr/...s_monde_gb.html
And for a detailed study, all you need to know about geology: http://geology.about.com/

The speed of tectonic plate movement is such that the surface of the planet had been replaced several times. This does not mean that any individual area cannot be more than a fraction of the age of the planet, but the average age is.

Again, there is a wealth of information here: http://geology.about.com/
But, more here: http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics
http://www.ucmp.berk.../tectonics.html

If the majority of sediment was deposited during a single, geologically very recent, event, its distribution would be different. It would be concentrated in the lower parts of the ocean, and we would not find stratified sediments.

I think this is plain logic, but I could add that we would observe all sediments to be of uniform age, instead of the greatly differing ages we actually observe (refer to the links above).

Finally, all the creationist explanations fail to cover the basic point: How we can observe mountains in different levels of erosion, ranging from hard granite mountains that have been almost roded down to flat plains, to relatively soft limestone that still stands kilometres tall. (Not to mention the lack of explanation of how tall limestone mountains can exist in the first place)

If you can't actually watch this where you live, you should be able to find plenty of information in the links already provided, but here are acouple of actual examples:

Tall limestone mountains: http://www.west-crete.com/lefka-ori_whi ... -crete.htm
The central European plain is a good example of an eroded granite formation. Today it is, of course, mostly covered by soil, but occasional outcrops exist, like Harzen.