• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi, Sophophile.

Hi AV1611VET.

*All* science disagrees with "embedded age" because science assumes when we make a direct observation of the real world we are seeing something real. In fact, this is common sense.
Science also says that what can't happen today, couldn't have happened yesterday.

This is why science would deny Jesus walking on water, not to mention His resurrection.

Therefore, and by the authority of the Scriptures, I say science can take a hike.
Embedded age, on the other hand, seems to me to teach that certain observations are elaborate fakes, and there is no way in principle to identify the fakes using physical evidence.
If you see a tree with 9000 rings, and you are taught that a tree grows one ring per year, you are going to assume that tree is 9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as many as two rings, you are going to assume that tree is 4500-9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as much as three rings, you are going to assume that tree is 3000-9000 years old, etc.
How, then, are we supposed to "try the spirits whether they are of God"? (1 John 4:1)
Easy ---
1 John 4:2-3 said:
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
 
Upvote 0

Sophophile

Newbie
Jul 21, 2008
256
18
✟15,482.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Science also realizes that some other things could also be real, but can not be seen. This is called theoretical science. The "embedded age" is one of the issue.

Hi juvenissun.

I do not believe this is correct.

Theoretical science would be predicting things that should be seen, but have not been (yet).

Embedded age seems to be a concept that entails that no physical evidence can count for or against it, even in principle. Whatever it is, that is not science.

In any case, my comment was about what science *does* see, very clearly and unequivocally, that proves the universe and the earth are ancient. Our direct observations of ice cores, impact craters, supernovae etc. are not going to disappear, regardless of what theories are being applied.

Cheers
S.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In any case, my comment was about what science *does* see, very clearly and unequivocally, that proves the universe and the earth are ancient.
It's what you don't see that can get you too.

If you see a tree with 9000 rings, you weren't there to count the rings on a year-by-year basis.

If --- and I say if --- that tree survived the Flood, and since tree rings can acquire more than one ring in a rainy season --- then that tree could have acquired thousands of rings if the amount of water was as much as Genesis says it was.

Think about it --- a little extra rain, and it grows an extra ring --- now picture that tree inundated with water for a year.

Lots of extra rings!
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Science also realizes that some other things could also be real, but can not be seen. This is called theoretical science. The "embedded age" is one of the issue.

AV would disagree with you -- he's already said that "embedded age" is no kind of science at all.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
It's what you don't see that can get you too.

So, what aren't we seeing, and who's out to "get us," AV?

If you see a tree with 9000 rings, you weren't there to count the rings on a year-by-year basis.

The rings are "domumentation" of 9,000 rainy seasons. Are you now saying that "documentation" is useless unless we actually witness it being written?

If --- and I say if --- that tree survived the Flood, and since tree rings can acquire more than one ring in a rainy season --- then that tree could have acquired thousands of rings if the amount of water was as much as Genesis says it was.

Except tree rings don't work that way. They do not acquire extra rings when they receive extra water all at once.

Haven't you overwatered a plant before?

Think about it --- a little extra rain, and it grows an extra ring --- now picture that tree inundated with water for a year.

Think about it indeed -- that tree completely immersed in salt water, cut off from sunlight and carbon dioxide in the air that it needs to survive. Now picture that tree subjected to bitter cold temperatures and crushing pressures from being at the bottom of a world-wide ocean that covers even the highest mountains.

Lots of extra rings!

Lots of dead trees.

Sorry, AV -- your attempt at a scientific explanation is a dismal failure. Best to quit now and crawl back under your "GOD DID IT" rock.
 
Upvote 0

Sophophile

Newbie
Jul 21, 2008
256
18
✟15,482.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Hi, Sophophile.

Science also says that what can't happen today, couldn't have happened yesterday. This is why science would deny Jesus walking on water, not to mention His resurrection.

Hello sir. I am refreshed from a weekend vacation with my wife (no kids!) But tired, as it is midnight here.

I don't understand your comment on science. For instance, science says that the Earth could not form today in its present orbit, but it did so in the past. Could you clarify?

Therefore, and by the authority of the Scriptures, I say science can take a hike.If you see a tree with 9000 rings, and you are taught that a tree grows one ring per year, you are going to assume that tree is 9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as many as two rings, you are going to assume that tree is 4500-9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as much as three rings, you are going to assume that tree is 3000-9000 years old, etc.Easy ---

Tree rings are not the sort of clear and unequivocal physical evidence I was referring to. However, dates derived from tree rings do match up well with dates from other method, so we are not assuming one ring per year, we actually observe one ring per year, both now and in the past, using a variety of independent methods.

Ice cores and supernovae are much more clear and unequivocal evidence of the age of the earth and the universe.

Cheers
S.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
ere
juvenissun
user_offline.gif

Veteran

56
Male.gif
Married.gif
Baptist.gif
1year.gif

Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 3,654
Blessings: 34,614 [Bless]
Reps: 145,449,964 (power: 145,454)
reputation_goldstar.gif
reputation_goldstar.gif
reputation_goldstar.gif
reputation_goldstar.gif
reputation_goldstar.gif
reputation_silverstar.gif
reputation_silverstar.gif
reputation_silverstar.gif
reputation_silverstar.gif
reputation_silverstar.gif
reputation_bronzestar.gif
reputation_bronzestar.gif
reputation_bronzestar.gif
reputation_bronzestar.gif
reputation_bronzestar.gif

reputation_green.gif
reputation_green.gif
reputation_green.gif
reputation_green.gif
reputation_green.gif
reputation_greenh.gif
reputation_greenh.gif
reputation_greenh.gif
reputation_greenh.gif
reputation_greenh.gif
reputation_gold.gif
reputation_gold.gif
reputation_gold.gif
reputation_gold.gif
reputation_gold.gif



Originally Posted by Sophophile
Hi AV1611VET.

*All* science disagrees with "embedded age" because science assumes when we make a direct observation of the real world we are seeing something real. In fact, this is common sense.

Science also realizes that some other things could also be real, but can not be seen. This is called theoretical science. The "embedded age" is one of the issue.QUOTE/////


Hespera sez>>>>>>>>>>>>

it is true that a lot of real things cant be seen. Like air. Or gravity or math. That isnt theoretical at all. That misses the essence of this topic though.

Common sense says that when we observe something real, that it is real. Embedded age requires that one see something real, and think it isnt.

What is being discussed is real stuff in plain sight.

A theory or religion that requires ignoring science and common sense has some flaws of a non-theoretical sort. The flaws are right out in the open.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Therefore, and by the authority of the Scriptures, I say science can take a hike.

Ah, but the Scriptures themselves don't say that -- and the only reason they have any authority is because you say they do.

Ultimately, isn't it your own authority that you're invoking here?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, AV -- your attempt at a scientific explanation is a dismal failure.
Well, looky what I found, Nathan:
Wikipedia - dendrochronology said:
Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Embedded age requires that one see something real, and think it isnt.
How does one "see" embedded age?

Especially if it is embedded in an object that is created ex nihilo?

What, exactly, would you be looking for, or expect to find?

QV please: 1.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ah, but the Scriptures themselves don't say that...
That's because They don't have to --- instead, They demonstrate it.

Such as when Jesus walked on water.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I simply don't accept the explanations --- that's all.

Then why all the fuss about "embedded age"? If the methods of dating used in science are wrong, then why not say the Earth is 6,000 years old with 6,000 years age?



Embedded Age is not based on your ability to date rocks.

If you, for instance, fail to date a rock, that doesn't mean Embedded Age didn't work.

What is "embedded age" based on? It is never mentioned in the Bible so it is clearly not based in scripture. We've never "failed" to date a rock. We date one rock- 350 million years, we date another 12,000 years. What have we failed to date?


Let me correct your statement: Remember Point 1 above --- only God can do it. You date fossils, I believe, by the age of the material they are found in. (Correct me please, if I'm wrong.)

Correct. It is sometimes more complicated than that but the premise is true.

That's why I gave the hypothetical that if I embedded the image of a leaf in anthracite, would the leaf be assumed to be as old as the anthracite it was found in?

Why would anyone want to embed a leaf in anthracite if it wasn't supposed to be there? Just to trick us puny humans? And yes it would be assumed to be as old as the anthracite it was found in especially when the anthracite was buried under several meters of rock. And what about the dinosaur footprints in coal? You haven't attempted to answer that yet!

That's easier than saying what I used to say all the time; viz. IF THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS SCIENCE, THEN SCIENCE IS WRONG.

Too bad the Bible never mentions anything about the "embedded age" of the earth, that is something that you made up. In this case science is contradicting you, and "embedded age" contradicts the nature of God.

That's right --- as long as science doesn't disagree with the Bible, I accept it; but if it disagrees, it can take a hike.

You cannot pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to reject. Darwin didn't go against the Origin of Species because it contradicted everything he was taught and believed in. Science requires you to be intellectually honest even if it clashes with what you want to believe.
So you accept "embedded age" but don't accept anything that science says about the age of the earth. Why do you accept a 4.5 billion year old earth but the only reason we know it is that old is because of the scientific methods used to find that age? The same methods you said could "take a hike."


No, Embedded Age does not make predictions, and it is not science --- all it is is an historical fact --- nothing more.

Yes it does. As soon as you stated that there is no history past 6,000 years we can instantly make the prediction that we shouldn't find any traces of history past 6,000 years. A prediction that was found to be false.

I say you're wrong, and your example is faulty.No offense, but I could not disagree more with this statement.I disagree.

Well you have not given any evidence in support of your "embedded age" scenario.
You accept the fact the earth is 4.5 billion years old which is based on measurements you don't accept.
You fail to recognize that imprints of fossils are still indicative of a history and have not given an answer as to why 250 million year old fossils are found in 250 million year old rock when "embedded age" states that there is only 6,000 years of actual history.
You fail to state why God would even put imprints of any past living thing in rock that is older than 6,000 years, which not only shows death but a deceptive history.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
41
In a House
✟25,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi, Sophophile.

Science also says that what can't happen today, couldn't have happened yesterday.

This is why science would deny Jesus walking on water, not to mention His resurrection.

Unless you just want to say that Jesus walking on water was a miracle and can never be supported by science. Unlike "embedded age" which is never mentioned in the Bible and is neither support by science or scripture.

Therefore, and by the authority of the Scriptures, I say science can take a hike.

Most of the stuff you claim isn't supported by scripture either.


If you see a tree with 9000 rings, and you are taught that a tree grows one ring per year, you are going to assume that tree is 9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as many as two rings, you are going to assume that tree is 4500-9000 years old. If you are taught that a tree can grow as much as three rings, you are going to assume that tree is 3000-9000 years old, etc.Easy ---

Let me introduce you to a little thing call dendrochronology.
dend05.gif


Factors influencing growth. Most people think that trees add a ring for every year of growth. To a great extent this is true, but there is more. Ring formation is as much a function of moisture as any annual cycle; years with greater-than-average rainfall result in thick rings whereas years with less-than-average rainfall result in thin ones. Many scientists have been very successful in reconstructing past weather and climatic conditions and patterns by assessing tree ring widths. Coniferous trees have proven to be the best and easiest, but not the only, trees with which to work.
Trees also add one ring for each rainy season within a year. If the climate of a particular region is wet year-round, as in the tropics, rings tend to be very thick and almost indistinguishable. If the climate of an area has two distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year. Now, here's a problem to consider. How might one interpret tree rings if an area with bimodal rainfall experiences an anomolous year in which there is only one rainy season? Clearly, dendrochronology isn't as easy and clearcut as it might seem at first glance.
Problems affecting growth. Complicating the interpretation of tree rings are other factors, three of the most common of which are burning, sloping terrain, and multiple trunks. Forest fires can burn off the bark and outer rings on one side of a tree and thereby affect the tree's growth, and hence ring formation, in following years. "False rings" can make life difficult for dendrochronologists. Slopes can affect the centricity of tree ring formation. It is not at all unusual to find trees with thicker rings on one side of the tree than on the other. In those cases were trees are growing on stable slopes, the rings tend to be thick on the downslope side. On unstable slopes, where landslides have disturbed vegetation, rings tend to be thicker on the upslope side. Trees with multiple trunks, junipers, for example, pose special problems. Growth patterns above points of bifurcation are usually different from that below the fork although the ages of the two segments might well be the same.
Uses. Dendrochronology has its widest application in archaeological and forestry studies. Archaeologists study the ring patterns in timbers they find during excavation of prehistoric and historic sites. They do so principally to determine the ages of sites, but increasingly are concerned with understanding past environmental (climate) conditions.

Dendrochronolgy has also been compared with Carbon 14 dating and has helped us calibrate the radiocarbon dating method. Using dendrochronology we have been able to go back at least 12,000 years and C14 has verified this measurement.

DENDROCHRONOLOGY:
annual layers of wood


History: A.E. Douglas, astronomer, founder of tree-ring science and University of Arizona Tree-ring Laboratory. Interested in sunspots and climate
  • 1901 rediscovered CROSSDATING, Living trees, small rings 21 rings inside bark, but in stump small, small rings 11 in from bark (tree cut 10 yr ago). (1737 Fr. Duhamel and Buffon frost-ring for 1709)
  • 1914 Carnegie Inst. Wash. funded dating beams from archeological site, Aztec NM. Developed 100 yr "Floating Chronology." National Geographic Soc. grant to develope master chronology
  • 1922 Sequoia Chronology shows 22-yr sunspot cycle.
  • 1929 Charred Beam HH-39 tied in Floating Chronology.
  • 1937 Laboratory of Tree Ring Research established at UA
Wood Morphology
  • Bark, Phloem, Cambium, Xylem
  • Late Wood: dense, dark; deposited in late summer/fall
  • Early Wood: large cells and thin walls, spring
tr_morph.gif


Principles
  1. species must have clearly defined annual rings
  2. species must have Circuit Uniformity
  3. rings must vary from year to year
Techniques:
  1. Tree Coring, stumps, slabs
  2. Ring Counting: often false rings or missing rings in one tree
    • precision (repeated counting)
      accuracy (true date)
  3. Crossdating: process of matching rings of trees in an area based on patterns of ring widths produced by regional climate. More accurate age than ring counting Methods of Crossdating:
    1. sample with increment borer, core glued to board
    2. count rings under dissecting scope
    3. skeleton plotting: graphical technique for matching
      • plot small rings as wide lines on paper
      • paste graph paper strips together and pattern match
    4. prepare local chronology by matching trees
    5. standardization: de-trending individual growth curves
    6. calibaration and verification: producing a climatic history
    7. combine local curves to produce regional chronology
tr_cal_v.gif
Calibaration and Verification

Experimental Design
  • sensitivity: variability in ring width (better crossdating)
    complacency: lack of variability
tr_snscp.gif
COMPLACENTSENSITIVE

World's Oldest Living Things

Tree Ring Growth Model

  • Rt = f(Gt, Ct, D1t, D2t, Et)
    • Gt = Age-related growth trend
      Ct = Climate-related growth
      • Dendroclimatology: precipitation, temperature, atm. pressure, runoff. e.g., Large forest fires in AZ and NM after dry springs associated with El Niño events. Swetnam and Betancourt (1990)
      D1t = Disturbance-ralated growth due to local factors within the stand
      • Dendroecology: pollution insects (e.g., tussock moth, spruce budworm), air pollution
      D2t = Disturbance-ralated growth due to regional factors outside the stand
      • Dendrochronology Dating fires, floods, earthquakes, volcanism, erosion & deposition rates.
        • Dating of archeological sites: date when tree died that was used for construction beams = "vegas." Chaco Canyon main construction period AD 1030 - 1100, spruce and fir transported > 75 km (Betancourt et al., 1986)
      Et = "Error" Variations due to factors other than Gt, Ct, D1t, D2t,
Application (Ct)
coloflood.gif


Radiocarbon Dating of Tree Rings:

Radiocarbon dating assumes a constant ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere. Dating of tree-rings shows that this ratio has fluctuated through time. U-Th dates on Barbados Corals corroborate the treering chronology and extend it to 30K, max deviation, 3.5 K too young, about 20 K (Bard et al., 1990)
Radiocarbon Dating of 20-yr, 10-yr and 1-yr ring intervals

North America
  • Bristlecone Pine
    Giant Sequoia
    Douglas Fir
Europe: (Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany)
  • Oaks and pines in Bogs
"Delta C fourteen"
Deviations expressed as difference between measured 14C and amount that would result in 1:1 radiocarbon-calendar age:
  • Δ 14C ‰



0-100 ya.14C age too old (subtract yrs from 14C date)100-700 ya.14C age too young (add years to 14C date)700-2500 ya.14C age too old (subtract years from 14C date)2500-8000 ya.14C age too young (add years to 14C date)
Variations in the ratio of 14C/12C
  • Rc = f(A, I, S, V)
  • Atomic Bomb tests doubled 14C concentration in atm.
  • Industrial Revolution has increased 12C concentration in atm. by 1/3
  • Solar variability
  • Variations in Earth's Geomagnetic Field
From http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/09dendrochron.html


http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/077/07701006.pdf

Heavy rainfall does not cause more rings to form, it causes wider rings to form.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, Nathan certainly did --- didn't he?

Think it was you who introduced the idea of 9000 rings. Either way, if a 9000-ringed tree existed, it would no doubt be crossreferenced. And being out by 6000 years is fairly unlikely.

This particular tree, however, was carbon-dated.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then why all the fuss about "embedded age"?
Like I say, the only ones who make a fuss are the ones who prefer the McGraw-Hill bible over the 1611 King James Bible.
If the methods of dating used in science are wrong, then why not say the Earth is 6,000 years old with 6,000 years age?
Let me say this for about the 31st time --- the reason I am not a YEC is because I believe what science says about the overall age of the universe --- I believe it --- bee eee ell eye vee eee --- believe it. I belive science when they say the universe is 13.7 billion years --- I do not, however, believe them when they say it has a history of 13.7 billion years. I only agree with their conclusion - (and that's just to keep the peace).
What is "embedded age" based on?
Omnipotence.
It is never mentioned in the Bible so it is clearly not based in scripture.
It is based on the conclusion of science.
We've never "failed" to date a rock.
Okie - doke.
We date one rock- 350 million years, we date another 12,000 years.
Okie - doke.
What have we failed to date?
According to Wikipedia, the trees during what was called, "The Year without a Summer."
Too bad the Bible never mentions anything about the "embedded age" of the earth, that is something that you made up.
It is a term of explanation that accounts for both the YEC and OEC positions on the age of the earth. In other words, it reconciles the two, without contradicting the Scriptures.
In this case science is contradicting you...
How can it contradict me, if I believe it?
... and "embedded age" contradicts the nature of God.
Nope.
You cannot pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to reject.
Therefore I reconcile both.
Science requires you to be intellectually honest even if it clashes with what you want to believe.
Then show me intellectually wrong.
So you accept "embedded age" but don't accept anything that science says about the age of the earth.
See above --- I accept their conclusion --- and that should be good enough --- but, of course, it's not --- since it's not what I say that counts, it's what I am.

In other words, I get the impression you guys are saying this to me:
AV, you're going to accept that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and you're going to accept it because evolution says it is, and not because you have some other explanation, and you're going to like it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,676
52,517
Guam
✟5,131,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Unless you just want to say that Jesus walking on water was a miracle and can never be supported by science.
Forget what I say --- what does science say?

(Please answer this.)
 
Upvote 0