Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[duordi]

Do you have any proof that a non-physical place exists?

The term heaven of heavens sure fits the galaxies (a heaven of heavens could mean a galaxy made of galaxies)

That would fit the idea of our galaxy is a heaven and the composit of all galaxies is also a heaven of heavens.

The odd part of this thought is that our galaxy would be part of the galaxy of galaxies.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

Do you have any proof that a non-physical place exists?


Duordi

Not only that, why would angels need a non-material realm to exist? They seem to do just fine in our material world, even eating food, and having their feet washed. Seems they can enjoy the physical world even better than we can. They don't need a spaceship to visit outer space, which we're just discovering has some very breathtaking sights.

 

[tyronem]

Philaddidle, tell me to go away if I'm getting ahead of the conversation here, but it might be worth pointing out that any young-earth explanation of the ice core data also has to provide a response to this:

"why do the dozens of various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample, again and again, over thousands of tests on hundreds of samples?"

Papias

If you call millions of years difference in dates (as is often observed) I think you need to change your definition of what to agree is

 

[Calminian]

If you call millions of years difference in dates (as is often observed) I think you need to change your definition of what to agree is

Hey, you're getting off topic!

Just kidding. I think we've highjacked this poor thread. We probably should start a new one, regarding the nature of heaven, and another for the nature of the waters of Gen. 1:2, 6.

 

[grimbly]

If you call millions of years difference in dates (as is often observed) I think you need to change your definition of what to agree is

No, I think you need to figure out what the term agreement in scientific usage really means. In a vast majority of cases differences of a couple million years between methodologies is outstanding agreement, a level of agreement that most scientists in a wide range of disciplines would be ecstatic to have.

I'll leave it to you to figure out why your statement, as it stands, says absolutely nothing about how accurate these measurements are. Give it some thought.

 

[1whirlwind]

What exactly would a "spiritual location" be, though? Scripturally, our spirit has to do with our will, particularly our moral will. In fact spirit could be defined as that which governs or drives our moral decisions. A spiritual man is known as a man who is morally attuned to God. The law of God is said to be spiritual, having God as its author. But what would a spiritual place be? And if there is such as thing as a spiritual place, couldn't it also be a physical place? But if it isn't physical, in what sense would it be spiritual?

Yes, the spiritual place is also a physical place.


Luke 17:20-21 And when He was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Not only that, why would angels need a non-material realm to exist? They seem to do just fine in our material world, even eating food, and having their feet washed. Seems they can enjoy the physical world even better than we can. They don't need a spaceship to visit outer space, which we're just discovering has some very breathtaking sights.

Indeed...they do "just fine." The same material world we all enjoy, no matter whether in a flesh and blood physically living body or a flesh and bone spiritual body, is the same world. It doesn't change...we do. We pass from man to spirit...same spirit and soul....in our new improved flesh and bone body = angel.






.

 

[Papias]

Tyronem wrote:

If you call millions of years difference in dates (as is often observed) I think you need to change your definition of what to agree is

The dates from samples tested by multiple methods agree with each other within a few percent (when tests are used properly). Sometimes (and I’m not saying you are doing this), reality deniers will claim that the tests are unreliable because they “disagree with each other by millions of years!!!”. However, when asked to show examples, they show examples like:

Dating method 1: age = 344 +or – 4 million years
Dating method 2: age = 347 + or – 5 million years

So, 344 (method #1) is different from 347 (method #2) by 3 million years, right?

Well sure, but in reality, the measured ages were:

Dating method 1: age = 340 to 348 million years
Dating method 2: age = 342 to 352 million years

In other words, the methods confirm each other, agreeing on an age between 342 and 348 million years old. Tyronem, do you agree that it would be deceptive for someone to say that the two methods in the above example disagree with each other, and are hence unreliable?

If so, then we can go on to talk about specific examples. I have many to examine, and am also open to you presenting some examples if you prefer.

Sound good?

Papias

 

[tyronem]

Dating method 1: age = 340 to 348 million years
Dating method 2: age = 342 to 352 million years

In other words, the methods confirm each other, agreeing on an age between 342 and 348 million years old. Tyronem, do you agree that it would be deceptive for someone to say that the two methods in the above example disagree with each other, and are hence unreliable?

If so, then we can go on to talk about specific examples. I have many to examine, and am also open to you presenting some examples if you prefer.

Hi Papias

I do not agree that that would be deceptive to say that they do not agree with each other.

The radiometric measured age example here has the ability to be 12 million years difference between the two dates that the radiometric decay seems to indicate as the relative ages. This date is also highly subjective to multiple unprovable and untestable assumptions.

12 Million years from an evolutionary standpoint is enough for entire kinds to change - ie dinosaurs to birds so 12 million years difference makes a huge impact upon what evolved to what.

Saying they agree is like saying if someone billed a company for 352 Million dollars and the company billed only paid 340 Million and declared the bill paid in full. No-one would accept a 12 Million dollar difference in fee as being accurate and in agreement.

Accurate is all metrics for that particular measurement being exact otherwise how do you know which one you can trust if any?

Evolution and the dating used within the evolutionary presupposition framework are the only places anywhere that when things are measured different they are assumed to be the same.

 

[Papias]

tyronem wrote:

I do not agree that that would be deceptive to say that they do not agree with each other.

tyronem, thanks for the clear and honest post. I see that you directly answered my question, never attacked me as a person, and clearly explained your position, without distortion, red herrings or so on.

We disagree over whether saying that the two results "disagree with each other" is a good way to characterize the situation. It seems that this is a good hypothetical example to use because it has clarified our difference in view. So, getting back to it:

Accurate is all metrics for that particular measurement being exact otherwise how do you know which one you can trust if any?

It may seem like that to someone unfamiliar with science, but in science it is well known (even expected) that all measurements have error bars, and that they are not exact at all. Almost all "exact" values are actually those defined that way, quite the opposite of measurements. By "exact", I suspect you actually mean "small error bars". Measurements with acceptably small error bars can be trusted - do we agree on that?

Evolution and the dating used within the evolutionary presupposition framework are the only places anywhere that when things are measured different they are assumed to be the same.

First of all, there are no presuppositions about the expected age - the measurement gives the age, and results aren't thrown out if they give an unexpected age. The only presuppositions are things like assuming that physical processes acted in the past like they act today - an assumption that is not only required for any science to be done, but one which you, tyronem, use yourself on a day to day basis. The dates are assumed to be consistent with each other, which is very different from saying they disagree. Saying they disagree would be the proper thing to say only if the ranges were significantly far from overlapping.

What you may be driving at is that this level of allowed error (this size of the error bars) is not tolerated anywhere else besides evolution and dating. If so, I have to disagree. Even taking your "12 million" number, (which is not the right way to see this error, but I'm willing to use it for this discussion anyway), a 12 million ( = +/- 6 million) is something we all, including scientists often tolerate.

+/- 6 out of 345 is a +/- 1.7% error. We tolerate +/- 1.7% all the time. For instance, that's +/- 1 minute on a clock (how many of our household clocks are off by a minute or more? I'd say most of mine, how about yours?). I had my biometric measurements taken by my doctor last week, and the blood pressure error bars are more than +/- 1.7% (you can see this by watching them take the measurement from the dial). 1.7 % is about two pounds for me, and by not asking me to remove shoes, and so on, my weight was off by well over 1.7%. At 30 mph, 1.7% is only 0.5 mph, and my spedometer reading varies by more than that just from moving my head, and so on. We routinely trust things that are off by +/- 1.7% including in science.

And that date, 345 million years ago, is easily sufficient for science in the example given. Seeing that a fish lived at that time tells the biologist plenty - such as whether or not it could be ancestral to something with an age of 320 million years ago, etc. Similarly a modern rabbit found at 345 million years ago would be the find of the century, even if the date were only known at a precision of +/- 1.7%.

Make sense?

Papias

 

[philadiddle]

If you call millions of years difference in dates (as is often observed) I think you need to change your definition of what to agree is

Let's say that a coroner examined a body and found that rigor mortis had set in to a degree that indicated the person died between 11:30pm and 11:50pm last Tuesday. Let's also say that the investigators found an analogue watch that appeared to be broken in a struggle with the time of 11:27pm. In additioin, there is video suveillance from a nearby store that saw the alleged killer climbing the fence at 11:20 and then leaving at 11:40.

Now the cheif investigator is on the stand in court. Would it be more reasonable for him to say:

a) The evidence objectively indicates that the victim was killed at approximately 11:30pm last Tuesday.

or

b) We have no idea when the victim was killed. The evidence does not match perfectly so we really have no idea if the victim died 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago. It's impossible for us to narrow down the time frame to something we can actually use in trial because there are differences in our methods of dating the death.

 

[tyronem]

Now the cheif investigator is on the stand in court. Would it be more reasonable for him to say:

a) The evidence objectively indicates that the victim was killed at approximately 11:30pm last Tuesday.

or

b) We have no idea when the victim was killed. The evidence does not match perfectly so we really have no idea if the victim died 5 minutes ago or 5 months ago. It's impossible for us to narrow down the time frame to something we can actually use in trial because there are differences in our methods of dating the death.

I understand your reasoning but in doing so you violate your premise because your example is an observable happenstance where provable assumptions can be made as there is observed video footage for one, science also has a very good understanding of body decomposition under certain situations due to observed, tested and measured examples.

Is it unreasonable to then say We cannot (yet) observe millions or billions of years therefore these examples sit at opposite spectrum's.

 

[philadiddle]

I understand your reasoning but in doing so you violate your premise because your example is an observable happenstance where provable assumptions can be made as there is observed video footage for one, science also has a very good understanding of body decomposition under certain situations due to observed, tested and measured examples.

Is it unreasonable to then say We cannot (yet) observe millions or billions of years therefore these examples sit at opposite spectrum's.

Even with a video camera, what if the camera is wrong? Or the person in the footage didn't actually do it? Science isn't about proving things, it's about giving the best explanation. Even if we take the video camera out of the analogy it still works.

But you are one of those that throws the word "assumptions" around as if it magically makes the evidence go away. If you would like to, please explain specifically what assumption is being used and more importantly, how it is being applied to the evidence that gives us false dates. I've challenged many creationists over the years to explain this and they all stay in the "safe zone" which is to keep it as a vague analogy.

As a separate request, I'd also like to know what it is about the various dating methods that we haven't tested and don't thoroughly understand. You implied in your post that that is the case.

 

[Papias]

tyronem, you also may have missed my post #150.

Papias

 

[lismore]

A young earth model cannot explain how the ice formed this way. However, what we observe in the ice fits nicely into an old earth model.

This may have been covered before, if so please forgive me!

Last year in Scotland we had several huge snowstorms in November, more in December and January. If the snow had not melted it would have formed several different layers each month, layers with different properties perhaps.

Maybe what is being interpreted as years ahould be individual storms?

 

[philadiddle]

This may have been covered before, if so please forgive me!

Last year in Scotland we had several huge snowstorms in November, more in December and January. If the snow had not melted it would have formed several different layers each month, layers with different properties perhaps.

Maybe what is being interpreted as years ahould be individual storms?

From the first post:
Each year we can see different bands of trapped isotopes in the snowfall that record the change from summer to winter and back again. We are not looking at each layer of snow, since it snows multiple times in a year, we are looking at the change in isotopes which we know for a fact alter from summer to winter. We see that the snow accumulates and records this each year and each decade that we observe it happen. Again, there are no assumptions here, this is observed fact.

 

[lismore]

From the first post:
Each year we can see different bands of trapped isotopes in the snowfall that record the change from summer to winter and back again. We are not looking at each layer of snow, since it snows multiple times in a year, we are looking at the change in isotopes which we know for a fact alter from summer to winter. We see that the snow accumulates and records this each year and each decade that we observe it happen. Again, there are no assumptions here, this is observed fact.

Perhaps that assumption can be wrong?

 

[philadiddle]

Perhaps that assumption can be wrong?

I'll re-quote that part but change the emphasis:

Each year we can see different bands of trapped isotopes in the snowfall that record the change from summer to winter and back again. We are not looking at each layer of snow, since it snows multiple times in a year, we are looking at the change in isotopes which we know for a fact alter from summer to winter. We see that the snow accumulates and records this each year and each decade that we observe it happen. Again, there are no assumptions here, this is observed fact.

 

[lismore]

I'll re-quote that part but change the emphasis:

Each year we can see different bands of trapped isotopes in the snowfall that record the change from summer to winter and back again. We are not looking at each layer of snow, since it snows multiple times in a year, we are looking at the change in isotopes which we know for a fact alter from summer to winter. We see that the snow accumulates and records this each year and each decade that we observe it happen. Again, there are no assumptions here, this is observed fact.

It is very forceful wording, to be sure.

They have observed a few years, so their extrapolations about the last million are facts!

It is a bit of a stretch and makes lots of assumptions.

 

[philadiddle]

It is very forceful wording, to be sure.

They have observed a few years, so their extrapolations about the last million are facts!

It is a bit of a stretch and makes lots of assumptions.

What assumption does it make that you think could be wrong?