2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf an old wooden canoe is found in a swamp, then it is very easy to date this canoe (or more precise, the wood of which the canoe is made of), no radiology is needed. If the canoe is ten years of age, or hundreds or even (in some examples) thousands of years, doesn't matter. And this to a precision of years only! Isn't it fantastic?
I think this link is quite good. Part of it says:
…. A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material accurately dated to a specific year to be used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating, through the estimation of a date range formed through the interception of radiocarbon …
…
…. In some re for the assumed level of accuracy of radiocarbon dating over a period of at least 10,000 years.
Science is fantastic!
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou bet😉😀
If an old wooden canoe is found in a swamp, then it is very easy to date this canoe (or more precise, the wood of which the canoe is made of), no radiology is needed. If the canoe is ten years of age, or hundreds or even (in some examples) thousands of years, doesn't matter. And this to a precision of years only! Isn't it fantastic?
Science is fantastic!
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo we can stick with this one, I said they came up dates, and those
KellyJay: "we have ice cores, and we have people dating them to whatever age they think is right."
As KellyJay thinks scientists reason: "Eh, let's see, this part of the icecore is about 24 thousand years, but the bible tells us it can't be more than 6 thousand years, so I write down, eh, well, let's say 4,500 years, sounds fine."
This is YE Creationi ...[text shortened]... , you don't know much about science... Or do you want me to find another quote of yours?
dates would be whatever they they thought was right. I do not see
how what I said is different that what you said, except you got a little
deeper into the process of how they came up with a date. It is still
them giving us a date they think is right is it not, or do you think they
believe it wrong and are giving us the data anyway?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea as we discovered while talking about the ice and that plane, ice
Providing they are annual rings, it is just a matter of logic that their “accuracy” is at least within a year. So if you count 101 annual rings though a cross-section then the oldest ring must be 101 years +- one year (actually it would be more accurate than that! But, purely just for the sake of argument, I am using what is by far the most cautious ...[text shortened]... f course, doesn’t only apply to tree rings but also layers in ice cores and also in rock strata.
layers can be altered by something other than time and we can get
different results while looking at layers, but tree rings or layered earth
those things we know there is nothing out there that can cause us to
get the wrong dates while looking at them, the ice yes, but not trees
and certainly not rock strate?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you don't believe the science behind, why don't you just say so? We all know that you don't believe in science, this is science, so why am I not surprised?
No we can stick with this one, I said they came up dates, and those
dates would be whatever they they thought was right. I do not see
how what I said is different that what you said, except you got a little
deeper into the process of how they came up with a date. It is still
them giving us a date they think is right is it not, or do you think they
believe it wrong and are giving us the data anyway?
Kelly
Do you think they are guessing? That they invent their conclusions from nothing?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm saying that I do not know, and they do not know how old it really
If you don't believe the science behind, why don't you just say so? We all know that you don't believe in science, this is science, so why am I not surprised?
Do you think they are guessing? That they invent their conclusions from nothing?
is! I can agree with them that according to their tests, the data shows
the X whatever it is they were testing is this old. Does that mean they
nailed it, got it all right, that they were beyond any misinformation and
they cannot be wrong at all? No, they can be wrong, just as I can, the
results of the test are the results of the test nothing more.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you don't know, why are you discussing it at all?
I'm saying that I do not know, and they do not know how old it really
is! I can agree with them that according to their tests, the data shows
the X whatever it is they were testing is this old. Does that mean they
nailed it, got it all right, that they were beyond any misinformation and
they cannot be wrong at all? No, they can be wrong, just as I can, the
results of the test are the results of the test nothing more.
Kelly
Have you any idea, at all, how they can come up with any conclusion? Or do you think this kind of science, or any scinece, is a hoax, just to get funds for next vacation in the middle of Greenland?
You talk anti-science, then why not admit you are anti-science? We know that you are a YE creationsist, alas, an anti-science believer...
Originally posted by KellyJaySo do you deny that if we count 100 annual layers in a cross-section of tree that this must represent 100 years? -yes or no?
Yea as we discovered while talking about the ice and that plane, ice
layers can be altered by something other than time and we can get
different results while looking at layers, but tree rings or layered earth
those things we know there is nothing out there that can cause us to
get the wrong dates while looking at them, the ice yes, but not trees
and certainly not rock strate?
Kelly
I'm missing something here people. According to one theory of evolutions " The big bang." Its so written that every planet including earth came about, from the atom that spun so fast as for it to explode. Might be true, but my question comes, " If so true how come some the some planets spin in different directions to others, If they all erupted from that spin they were suppose to keep that spin direction, not so?" If any1 can help I could be falling short of scientific explanations. PEACE
3 edits
Originally posted by Gabriel KhwelaWhen you say Evolution, do you have some specific religious definition, or do you mean the good old scientific Darwinian evolution?
I'm missing something here people. According to one theory of evolutions " The big bang." Its so written that every planet including earth came about, from the atom that spun so fast as for it to explode. Might be true, but my question comes, " If so true how come some the some planets spin in different directions to others, If they all erupted from t ...[text shortened]... ction, not so?" If any1 can help I could be falling short of scientific explanations. PEACE
The planets didn't came into being at the BigBang. Universe is about 14 billion of years. Our planetary system came into being 4.6 billion of years ago.
How the planets spin has nothing to do with Darwinistic evolution, rather how the dynamics of the cloud producing the sun and our planets was before the sun started its fusion. Planetary formation was at the time quite chaotic in its behaviour, lots of local collisions, some so powerful that it tilted Uranus' spin.
My advice - learn the difference between evolution and astronomy, and you will have much fun. Just don't read the bible to find the answers, it's quite bad as a science book. Don't listen to any priests, because they don't know much about science. Read books about evolution and you will learn lots of biology, read books about astronomy and you will learn lots about planets, stars, galaxies, and Cosmogony.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo how wrong would you guess the tree ring data to be off? Would you say plus or minus 100 years in 10,000? plus or minus 1000 years? What?
I'm saying that I do not know, and they do not know how old it really
is! I can agree with them that according to their tests, the data shows
the X whatever it is they were testing is this old. Does that mean they
nailed it, got it all right, that they were beyond any misinformation and
they cannot be wrong at all? No, they can be wrong, just as I can, the
results of the test are the results of the test nothing more.
Kelly
You must be going on some gut level feeling about this or are you professing such a profound lack of understanding that you feel you could never undertake to understand such processes? If that is the case, it seems you must be afraid of your own shadow, stuck in a world of superstition and if so, how can you even venture out of doors from your house for fear of being killed?
Are you saying the tree ring data is so patently false that what seems to us to be a 10,000 year old tree could in fact be 25 years old or something?
Originally posted by sonhouseKJ's margin of error will support whatever the bible says with regards to earth age :-(
So how wrong would you guess the tree ring data to be off? Would you say plus or minus 100 years in 10,000? plus or minus 1000 years? What?
You must be going on some gut level feeling about this or are you professing such a profound lack of understanding that you feel you could never undertake to understand such processes? If that is the case, it seems yo ...[text shortened]... e that what seems to us to be a 10,000 year old tree could in fact be 25 years old or something?
1 edit
Originally posted by Gabriel KhwelaYou are correct that angular momentum is conserved. When an object is rotating (spinning) it has some angular momentum.
I'm missing something here people. According to one theory of evolutions " The big bang." Its so written that every planet including earth came about, from the atom that spun so fast as for it to explode. Might be true, but my question comes, " If so true how come some the some planets spin in different directions to others, If they all erupted from t ...[text shortened]... ction, not so?" If any1 can help I could be falling short of scientific explanations. PEACE
I think you are asking "If originally all the spin was in one direction, how come now planets spin in different directions?". This is a simple but often missunderstood problem. Although the total angular momentum is conserved, this does not mean that the angular momentum of individual objects needs to be conserved in isolation.
So if a group of object collide, it is possible for them all to come out of the collision with different angular momentums, and with each body having angular in a "different direction" then they started with, as long as the total angular momentum of the group is unchanged ie: the SUM of all the angular momentums must remain constant.
This problem is more complicated as the initial stages of the universe are not very well understood - there was no mass for example because it was too energetic for protons/neutrons to form etc...
EDIT: just to clarify, if there are two identical objects both spinning in the same direction with identical spins (for simplicity), then angular momentum is conserved if one object changes the direction of its spin (but keeps the same rotation rate) and the other object doubles its rate of spin. This is what allows different directions of spin to come out of a system with only one direction of spin to begin with. I hope this helps :-)
Originally posted by MattPOne thing, it has not been shown that the universe started out rotating. There are studies going on now trying to find patterns in the CBR that would support such a conjecture but so far the universe does not seem to be rotating as a whole which kind of throws a monkey wrench into the spinning planets idea.
You are correct that angular momentum is conserved. When an object is rotating (spinning) it has some angular momentum.
I think you are asking "If originally all the spin was in one direction, how come now planets spin in different directions?". This is a simple but often missunderstood problem. Although the [b]total angular momentum is conserved, th ...[text shortened]... o come out of a system with only one direction of spin to begin with. I hope this helps :-)[/b]