Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stuu]

In other words, whatever you neither see with your eyes, hear with your ears, feel with your touch, smell with your olfactory, nor taste with your taste buds, you deny to constitute evidence?
...truth and logic can't be seen with one's eyes.

Truth is as I described above, not a particularly useful term, given its usage. Logic is a philosophical construction which is deployed to interpret evidence. Evidence is, as you describe, what you collect via the senses and their technological extensions.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

What they count is annual. Otherwise you think they are idiots or conspirators. Would you care to explain?

Stuart

I'll let Dr. Walt Brown explain with a quote from his book In the Beginning:

Don’t be misled by claims that hundreds of thousands of layers of glacial ice can be counted, and therefore the ice age began hundreds of thousands of years ago. Yes, layers can be seen in ice cores extracted from deep in glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland, but less than 2,000 annual layers can be counted visually for a very simple reason. The weight of the overlying layers have compressed all the layers below. They are now so thin that the eye can no longer count them.

To justify hundreds of thousands of layers, mathematical models are created in which some measured characteristic of the ice core (such as dust content, acidity, or various chemical isotopes) is measured along every millimeter of the core’s length. Then, mathematical curves having hundreds of thousands of cycles are fit to the data. Missing is the statistical analysis showing that the fit is significant—that the data (such as dust content, acidity, or the variation pattern of oxygen-18) is not random noise. If laymen are not impressed by the claim that it took 800,000 “years” for all those cycles to be laid down, those same laymen may be impressed by the technical jargon describing the oxygen-18 or acidity measurements. Hidden is the simple fact that less than 2,000 true annual layers can be counted—even with magnification.¹⁹

 

[7djengo7]

I think truth is as much a reference to ones own codes of belief as it is to demonstrating something is a fact or a reality. It is many people's Truth that Jesus walked again after being executed. This is an event with essentially a zero probability, so it may constitute Truth, but it is not reasonable to claim it as a true account of history.

Stuart

In other words, you have just refused, once again, to answer the question I asked you.

Your use of the word "probability" is meaningless.

 

[Right Divider]

I think truth is as much a reference to ones own codes of belief as it is to demonstrating something is a fact or a reality. It is many people's Truth that Jesus walked again after being executed. This is an event with essentially a zero probability, so it may constitute Truth, but it is not reasonable to claim it as a true account of history.

Stuart

Please provide proof for that claim.

 

[7djengo7]

Truth is as I described above, not a particularly useful term, given its usage. Logic is a philosophical construction which is deployed to interpret evidence. Evidence is, as you describe, what you collect via the senses and their technological extensions.

Stuart

Why do you so venomously despise truth and logic?

Your mind is so messed up that here you are actually, proudly denying that evidence is not truth.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that evidence is not truth?

Why do you consider it useful (to borrow your term) for you to deny that evidence is truth?

 

[7djengo7]

I think truth is as much a reference to ones own codes of belief as it is to demonstrating something is a fact or a reality.

Do you wish to deny that truth and fact are one and the same?

That which is factual/fact is true/truth, no?

That which is true/truth is factual/fact, no?

 

[Stuu]

I'll let Dr. Walt Brown explain with a quote from his book In the Beginning:
Don’t be misled by claims that hundreds of thousands of layers of glacial ice can be counted, and therefore the ice age began hundreds of thousands of years ago. Yes, layers can be seen in ice cores extracted from deep in glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland, but less than 2,000 annual layers can be counted visually for a very simple reason. The weight of the overlying layers have compressed all the layers below. They are now so thin that the eye can no longer count them.

To justify hundreds of thousands of layers, mathematical models are created in which some measured characteristic of the ice core (such as dust content, acidity, or various chemical isotopes) is measured along every millimeter of the core’s length. Then, mathematical curves having hundreds of thousands of cycles are fit to the data. Missing is the statistical analysis showing that the fit is significant—that the data (such as dust content, acidity, or the variation pattern of oxygen-18) is not random noise. If laymen are not impressed by the claim that it took 800,000 “years” for all those cycles to be laid down, those same laymen may be impressed by the technical jargon describing the oxygen-18 or acidity measurements. Hidden is the simple fact that less than 2,000 true annual layers can be counted—even with magnification.

Well it would be a fair criticism of what I claimed that you could not count even with an optical telescope the final layers at the bottom of the 800,000 year-old core, and indeed from about 55,000 years down a combination of techniques is needed to verify the age, as Mr. Brown indicates to some degree. Once visible detection becomes impossible, a combination of techniques has to be used, for example differences between the abundances of oxygen-18 rich water in summer and winter, and in others such as tritium. The major problem with this technique is that as the layers get really thin further down, the isotope-containing water tends to diffuse and move around the isotopes being measured. By the time you get to the bottom, the scientists who perform these counts and estimates give an error of +/-10,000 years for the 807,000 year level. You can read about these estimates, and a description of human counting variations here.

Unfortunately Mr.Brown's creationism is now out of date because it is possible to count the rings of the oldest living bristlecone pine tree to 5062 years ago, to correlate tree ring thickness patterns with older preserved pines back 12,000 years, and to count reliably annual ice core layers back 55,000 years in the Vostok ice core. That's more than enough to demolish Young Earth Creationism, because trees lived uninterrupted over the past 12,000 years and there is no disruption to ice formation or the kind of inclusions a global flood should leave in the past 55,000 years.

End of Young Earth Creationism, right? Evolution has plenty of time. End of thread

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Well it would be a fair criticism of what I claimed that you could not count even with an optical telescope the final layers at the bottom of the 800,000 year-old core, and indeed from about 55,000 years down a combination of techniques is needed to verify the age, as Mr. Brown indicates to some degree.

:rotfl:

Once visible detection becomes impossible, a combination of techniques has to be used, for example differences between the abundances of oxygen-18 rich water in summer and winter, and in others such as tritium.

Your "combination of techniques" are bogus. I guess that you're not reading stuff again.

End of Young Earth Creationism, right?

Nope. Still alive and well.

Evolution has plenty of time.

Nope. Still not enough time for the impossible.

End of thread

End of your part, we hope.

 

[Stuu]

telescope

Good grief. Must proof read better.

Your "combination of techniques" are bogus. I guess that you're not reading stuff again.

You'd have to give more than a bogus claim of bogus. What is bogus? Is it bogus because a mechanical engineer says it is?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it is still annual layer counting for the last 55,000 years. So global flood a few thousand years ago disproved by two independent annual counting techniques.

RIP YEC.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Good grief. Must proof read better.

:thumb:

You'd have to give more than a bogus claim of bogus. What is bogus? Is it bogus because a mechanical engineer says it is?

He made valid points that you ignored.

That's funny too... because I constantly see old earth confirmed by "consensus".

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it is still annual layer counting for the last 55,000 years.

Nope... and it will not magically become true just because you keep repeating it. Is it true because you say it is? See how that works?

So global flood a few thousand years ago disproved by two independent annual counting techniques.

RIP YEC.

You seem to enjoy being wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

You should read the Wikipedia article on isochron dating. It explains how this technique eliminates this assumption.

From the article under the heading Assumptions:

An isochron diagram will only give a valid age only if all samples are cogenetic, which means they have the same initial isotopic composition (that is, the rocks are from the same unit, the minerals are from the same rock, etc.), all samples have the same initial isotopic composition (at t₀), and the system has remained closed.

 

[Stuu]

:thumb:
Nope... and it will not magically become true just because you keep repeating it. Is it true because you say it is? See how that works

This is worth a look, at least to see what is done with the trifling percentage of American's tax dollars is spent at NASA:

If you look at this diagram constructed from the radar and ice core data, the layer corresponding to the time claimed for a global flood is about half-way down that top layer:

Here is the photograph from the Holy Wikipedia ice core page of the 1855m deep section of the GISP2 core from Greenland:

According to the error estimation table in this paper about the GISP2 core, that photograph corresponds to the section counted to between 39,000 years before present and 44,000 years bp. The paper is good reading on many aspects of the science of this ice core.

If you, or any reader of the thread can point out an error in this I would be keen to know, because reading about this, I haven't gained the impression that 40,000 years back would be that 'easily' countable. But perhaps it is. The trick is probably not in seeing the layers, but confirming that they really are annual by independently using 18-O, dust, pollen, electrical conductivity and so on (the bogus techniques, right?).

No sign of a flood anywhere in the past 40,000 years plus, if you can be bothered to count 'em up, and according to this ice core and these scientists, none in at least the past 110,000 years.

And there are plenty more ice cores that give their own version of that same fact.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

No sign of a flood anywhere in the past 40,000 years plus, if you can be bothered to count 'em up, and according to this ice core and these scientists, none in at least the past 110,000 years.

And there are plenty more ice cores that give their own version of that same fact.

Stuart

I've heard of missing the forest for the trees, but this is ridiculous.

this is what happens when you question beg and don't consider other possibilities, such as that the ice "layers" were all laid down at the same time,

 

[Right Divider]

I've heard of missing the forest for the trees, but this is ridiculous.

this is what happens when you question beg and don't consider other possibilities, such as that the ice "layers" were all laid down at the same time,

He's pretty dense.

 

[Stuu]

From the article under the heading Assumptions: An isochron diagram will only give a valid age only if all samples are cogenetic, which means they have the same initial isotopic composition (that is, the rocks are from the same unit, the minerals are from the same rock, etc.), all samples have the same initial isotopic composition (at t₀), and the system has remained closed.

The moral of this story is don't sample in ways that produce non-cogenetic sampling!

The result of isochron dating tells you the time since the sample was last homogeneous. Generally that means the last time a rock was molten before solidifying to produce crystals. In that crystallisation process different minerals separate out, as can be seen in the formation of crystals in granite as liquid magma cools, for example. It works really well making an isochron plot from each of the different minerals produced during crystallisation.

A parent isotope decays into a daughter isotope according to a decay curve. What you are looking at in an isochron plot is, on the vertical axis the ratio of the daughter isotope to a non-radioactive isotope of the same element (which ratio will increase over time) and on the horizontal axis the ratio of the parent isotope to the non-radioactive isotope of the daughter (which ratio will decrease over time). So compared with the simple version of just taking the ratio of parent to daughter, the inclusion of the non-radioactive isotope in this isochron plot gives you some insurance against the difficulties of the simple version, for example if you are going to lose the daughter product then you will also lose the chemically identical non-radioactive version of it, so the ratio will be maintained despite the loss. Perhaps we should consider other aspects if you or another reader are interested in other aspects of the reliability of isochrons over the simple ratios.

At this site can be found an animation and description of how an isochron plot for a rock would change over time. Note that the start of the animation shows that the rock is molten and so there aren't individual crystals, then at the point of crystallisation the different minerals have different concentrations of the relevant isotopes, and so the three sampled minerals from the rock appear independently.

Now, in relation to your objection above, there could be an inclusion in the rock which did not crystallise at the same time, maybe say a lump of material that stayed solid in the molten rock. If that is the case, then the isochron will not give a straight line, and anyway there is a good chance that the inclusion would be fairly obviously different chemically. There are other rare effects that can give false straight isochron lines, but generally a straight line is very good evidence of a reliable radioisotope dating result.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I've heard of missing the forest for the trees, but this is ridiculous. this is what happens when you question beg and don't consider other possibilities, such as that the ice "layers" were all laid down at the same time,

Please explain how that explains the evidence, especially modern observations of ice layers forming.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

End of Young Earth Creationism, right? Evolution has plenty of time. End of thread

Stuart

Oh, be sure and recycle the little cardboard spool, then, seeing as you use TOL threads exclusively for the purpose for which bath tissue is made.

(Maybe you've gotten confused and unable to distinguish between "Reply" and "Two-ply".)

 

[7djengo7]

He's pretty dense.

He admits that he only accepts what he wishes to accept:

You must only accept what you wish to accept.

 

[Right Divider]

The moral of this story is don't sample in ways that produce non-cogenetic sampling!

Sorry Stuu... but the WHOLE philosophy behind ANY form of radiometric dating is based on the HOW the radioactive elements came to be in the first place. YOUR long age story on how those elements came to be is a myth full of conjecture. On the other hand, Dr. Walt Brown's hydro-plate theory gives solid scientific evidence for how those elements come to be during the time of the flood.

 

[Right Divider]

Please explain how that explains the evidence, especially modern observations of ice layers forming.

Stuart

Ah... that uniformitarianism hard at work again.