Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-03-2014 12:31 AM
86 online now:
anglagard, Dr Adequate, dwise1 (3 members, 83 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Post Volume:
Total: 735,125 Year: 20,966/28,606 Month: 53/1,410 Week: 71/275 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 90 (406515)
06-20-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by simple
06-20-2007 4:22 AM


Keys\Simple still shooting blanks.
If we had an initial ratio of C12, and C14, used in the former process, the curve works as well.

You assume that what should have been there pre split was something that I don't assume. How would you know if they were affected by decay?? If there was, say, more carbon in the past, and much of it decayed, why would we expect a lot now??? The ratio itself that means something now, in this state, means nothing the same in the past. Unless you prove a same past state, of course! You can't! You really have no case at all. Your myth is busted.

False. An initial ratio would show up as the same proportion of 14C/12C for all the rings formed before decay started. They would all then decay at the same rate when decay started. Thus they would have the same proportion of 14C/12C today. This does not match any portion of the curve. Nothing you have said matches what is seen in the curves. The actual 14C/12C data versus the time of the tree rings shows consistency with the decay rates being constant as is in accordance with the basic laws of physics. You can break the laws with magic, but that still does not explain the data and the correlations.

I see you never addressed the convenient missing rings in the early growth of the tree that was older than the split!

This is irrelevant because it is covered by the overlapping data from the other samples, ones that were alive when these two trees were young and which lived before they germinated. The rings overlap and show a consistent match, not only for climate but for 14C/12C ratios. All the missing rings would show is that the trees are older than listed, thus forcing your voodoo woo magic time further into dreamtime.

It merely assumes the same present state ways into the past. Then, it looks at how those things are now produced. You must be kidding, cut the assumption based myths here.

So you are dismissing your own evidence now. LOL.

If the missing rings, say, start at 4400 rings ago, and went to however old the tree was, say, 4780 rings, that means there are 380 missing rings! Tell us, in that period, that you say is 'years', what is the 14C/12C relationship, precisely???

The rings are not missing, they are there and just as much a part of the evidence as all the other rings. When the 14C/12C data are converted by the exponential curve into "14C age" you get a curve like this (note curve covers whole dendrochronlogical time and all the samples not just one or two trees):


Click to enlarge

You will note the small variations (the jaggedness of the curve) due to climate and the long term variation that makes the curve deviate from the straight line that would apply if things were as they are today. Note that this shows that an assumption that things are the same as today is not involved in the actual data, but that the data is being used to see what the differences are from things as they are today.

Note that any sudden appearance of decay after a period of constant ratio would show up as a vertical line to the top of the graph. This is not the case.

Absolute balderdash. The data extends nowhere of the kind. The rings on one tree are under 5000. With trees that could grow real fast in a different past, the other 7405 'years' is pure, uncut fantasy, based solely on that state of the past you cannot prove. That is all. Nothing more.

Your denial is getting petulant and childish. The growth of the sample trees overlap in time and correlate for tree ring climate data and 14C data. The above graph shows a clear line with no blurring or scattering of data. Deal with the evidence or wallow in delusion.

Well, tough if you don't like the YEC ages determined from the bible, by Usher. It is an accepted thing, whether you like or no like. Not by all, but so what?

But so what? That is precisely my point: it is opinion and not fact. Usher is not evidence of fact. Tree rings are facts. The age of the earth is a fact. You have presented no facts for any biblical timeline.

The evidence of a bible position that is researched and accepted widely is evidence enough for me, ...

I am no biblical scholar, but I have no need to be one to distinguish falsified opinion from fact and to see that gullible acceptance of opinion at odds with reality is still delusion.

de·lu·sion –noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Usher's dates are contradicted by reality, therefore he made a mistake. His chronology is falsified and it is time for you to go back and look at the facts or to accept that you prefer fantasy to reality.

I call you out here. This is not accurate. Back up your claims. The dates are not at all reliably recorded, that is false. Look into it. Be amazed.

He's a simple overview for you:

A SURREALISTIC VIEW OF ANCIENT EGYPT'S TIMELINE

quote:
EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD c. 3100 BC—c. 2686 BC

First and Second Dynasties:

Narmer — (Menes, possibly same person) First Ruler of Dynastic Period. Scorpion — One of the last Rulers of this period. Kingship develops secular power over Two Lands and identify themselves as an embodiment with Gods; Horus, the Sun God Re and the Son of Re. Capital & Royal Court-Memphis; Abydos is Main Necropolis. Mastaba Tombs built from mudbrick and Mortuary Temples housed the Deceased’s ka; a Spirit Force surviving death. Stelae is an inscribed slab inside and outside of Tombs and Temples depicting information of that particular King and Deity associated with him. First calendrical system based on astronomical measurements and Hieratic Script developed.


Color mine for emPHAsis.

Even if we assume that the astronomical based calendar was developed at the end of this period that still puts it at 4,693 years ago. Of course it shows normal climates with winters and summers and years ... normal enough to be recognizable today as a calendar. Note too that the stelae that have been translated with the reigns of kings that can also be pieced together into a chronology of relative ages that extend back to the earliest times of this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Writing

quote:
Writing

For many years, the earliest known hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette, found during excavations at Hierakonpolis (modern Kawm al-Ahmar) in the 1890s, which has been dated to c.3150 BC. However, recent archaeological findings reveal that symbols on Gerzean pottery, c.3250 BC, resemble the traditional hieroglyph forms.[2] Also in 1998 a German archaeological team under Günter Dreyer excavating at Abydos (modern Umm el-Qa'ab) uncovered tomb U-j, which belonged to a Predynastic ruler, and they recovered three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphics dating to the Naqada IIIA period, circa 33rd century BC.[3][4]


Writing dated to 5,157 years ago, before the development of the astronomical calendar.

My claim that "The dates are based on the written history, the written record, one that invokes no change in historical times of any biological, chemical, physical or astronomical behavior from what we know today" stands. Substantiated by the evidence of the calendar alone.

You are in for a surprise. I am telling you point blank, the dates are wrong wrong wrong. You will not be able to support them.

Petulance gets you nowhere. The evidence again shows you are in denial, and more than belly deep.

Irrelevant to this debate. The dates are in this state universe.
Woah. Slow down here. If we start 'correcting' things in a different state past, and 'normalizing' them for dynamics of years thet never were, we have a problem.
So we have atomic ratios, projected into a different past, as if they were the same, and an admission that water vapor affects the mix here.
Whopee do. We see how it now works. Great. So??
And WHO questions this, since it is present based, and in the present state timeframe?
OK, --- so??
Well, no. Not at all. All this refers to is layers, not years. Obviously, as we cross into the different past, the layers were put down faster.
Hello??? Probably what did what?? 'orbital forcing'??? What is that? Why paste a huge bunch of stuff here, that just guesses, and supposes, and speculates, and rattles on about nothing?? Woulda coulda shoulda, maybe..!
Excuse me??? Now they try and cook up stuff to explain what they see. Humid??? Hey, pre split can do that.
Say what???? 'century scale'??? What is this supposed to mean, what happens in these last know centuries must extend into the mystic past as well????
So? WHEN they have some point, then they can make it.
Prove it!!! Don't just rattle off a story as if it meant something!
There was pollen. Wow. How impressive. So??
I think the ice age was after the flood anyhow. So..??
40,000 layers, not years. Piece of cake. Just stop assuming things present, and there is no problem.

When you get around to addressing the evidence let me know. All you have here is incredulity, ignorance and denial. You haven't refuted the evidence for climate change in the ice layers that also correlate with the climate changes shown in the tree rings for the same ages.

Pollen is spring, dust is summer, and snow is winter. It is that simple for why they are annual layers. When you "think" the ice age occurred is irrelevant to the layers of pollen, dust and snow. Scientists prefer data that show climate change, not your assumptions based on myths and a falsified timeline.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by simple, posted 06-20-2007 4:22 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 06-20-2007 11:09 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 35 of 90 (406565)
06-21-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by simple
06-20-2007 11:09 PM


Continued denial of reality
What do we have FROM beyond 4500 years ago, such a tree rings???

The tree ring data extends back to 12,405 years ago (Message 17). One single tree extends back to 4,887 years ago (Message 8) even without the core of the tree (missing due to erosion). This has been pointed out to you before, and your continued denial of the evidence is just evidence or your continued denial of reality.

There were no basic laws of present physics, unless there was a same state past, forget those. If they were not laws in the past, no one could break them.
Present laws depend on a present state physical only universe. I have no reason to assume there was one,
And the same goes for ice layers. If there was a different past, we could have had different ways to form ice layers.
"Counting of Annual Layers
Also, if there was no decay, we can look at a different solar effect, in some ways.
Forget about it, when you lump PO state things, that consist of a majority of the picture here with trees, into some phantom ball curve. That is hand waving, or PO wand waving. You cannot convert a starting ratio from the different past, by waving the Mickey Mouse wamd over it.
No, I don't note that at all. Let's look at where we hit the split, and see what decay you think was there. Start the lines closer to the flood, after all we are not discussing the time since then, as a focus.
No trees that grow in a week that overlap matter. Prove there was a same state universe in the past, or wallow in your delusions.

This is just a repetition of your previous off the cuff assumption with no basis in any kind of evidence. It is fantasy. It is in conflict with the facts of reality, and thus it is delusion.

The evidence is entirely consistent with decay occurring as it does today for the length of the tree ring chronology, 12,405 years minimum. The evidence is contradictory to your assumptions regarding a steady 14C/12C environment with no decay for any period starting at some point in the tree ring chronology. Your concept is falsified and you need to start over.

{abe} Just to be clear why your premise is falsified: your premise was that pre time {Y} there was no decay, and a constant ratio of 14C/12C in the environment. We'll call that ratio RO. At time {Y} the decay of 14C commences, and all 14C then begins to decay at the same time: no matter what the rate is, whether it varies or not, all the 14C is affected exactly the same by the decay. Over time (t) the ratio of 14C/12C decays to Rt. Each sample that started at RO would now be at Rt. This would be true no matter what time t is involved. Whatever time t your choose the ratio Rt would be the same for the samples. It would be true today. Thus all pre time {Y} tree rings must all have exactly the same ratio of 14C/12C today, if your premise were true, and this would show up as a horizontal line on the exponential decay curve or a vertical line on the "14C age" curve. There is no such line in the data. There is no way around this conclusion, as it is derived from the premise and the behavior of decay after time {Y} affecting all samples equally. It does not matter if the decay rate was different 10 years ago or not. Face the facts, choose reality. {/abe}

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
We could have had cooler and warmer periods in a day. In a consistent way.

Your source does not address these ice cores at all, only the polar ones, as such it does not address the issue of dust and pollen in the layers of these cores and their evidence of annual buildup. Further your source does not show that you could have "cooler and warmer periods in a day" so your claim that this could occur is another off the cuff at odds with reality statement. Please deal with the evidence and not engage in fantasy.

Ho ho ho, what an absolute joke! The dead stuff around does not matter, because if a tree could grow in a week, all correlations are wonky as you have assumed things.
The ratios, as already explained do not matter. What does matter is the time you assume it used to take trees to grow, which is based, on...class?.....right, present rates.

Denial is still just denial, no matter how you dress it up or how often you flaunt it. The trees overlap, with rings correlating with climate variations AND correlating with 14C/12C levels. Your assumption of growth within a week during a no decay period cannot explain these correlations being simultaneously correct.

If those rings are there, why are they missing? If they are not missing, where are they??

You were talking about rings before 4400 years ago being missing. What you are missing is that the Prometheus rings extend back to 4,887 years ago, so the ones 4400 to 4887 are certainly not missing. The rings to the date of germination before 4,887 years ago are missing due to erosion of the tree -- from the Prometheus tree data. Those rings do show up in other samples that overlap the time when Prometheus was alive and that extend further into the past -- up to almost 9000 years ago -- so those rings are not missing in those other samples. Please try to deal with the evidence, it is simple.

{abe} It comes to my mind that you are once again misreading things, as you did with the floating varve chronology, and mixing up the rings missing due to erosion and the error producing missing rings that are the other source of known error in individual tree samples. These latter kind of missing rings are individual rings in individual trees that are missing due to local environment, nutrition and other possible factors. They do not occur in all samples but in individual trees in the same way that false rings occur, and they are corrected for in the same manner. This of course is a much more likely source of error in the extreme environment of the Bristlecone Pine than are false rings, and if anything means that the trees would be older than the ring count would indicate. The climate correlation between the two trees however rules this out as being a significant source of error. {/abe}

Well, great, let's start this curve at 4400 years ago, and see how it looks. That is the difference, after all we are looking for.
You have not falsified squat here, and you won't. Count on it.

This just continues to ignore the evidence that exists. This is not any kind of refutation, all it is is delusion based on denial:

de·lu·sion –noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Well, so what, what isn't opinion? Your same past is opinion, and all that is assumed from it. The age of the earth is 6000 years. My facts are that there is a valid body of bible opinion that the bible does give us the creation period. You can agree or not, but it is still a bible position.
Well, that is what we are looking at. What is a fact, is that the YEC position is a very valid bible position. No reality contradicts the dates, only the mental projection of today's reality into the past, as if it were the reality there as well. That is what you fail to prove, support, deal with, evidence, observe, test, or etc.

Still nada for evidence of your claim. You asked for an extremely lenient criteria for evidence and got it, but you still fail to produce. All this amounts to is your personal assertion of your personal fantasy.

The calendar of Egypt is set to assumptions only. Look into it. Don't just rattle off these stories as if they meant something. And as far as spirit rulers, and gods, are you claiming that as evidence?? Show us what science the dates are backed up with, or what support for records that give old dates, precisely.
Now, show us on what star, or etc this calendar was based. Show us how we know that. Let's look at that. (If you are starting to get this little feeling in your gut that the dates can't be supported, you are right, the dates are wrong)
OK, let us look at that claim. Show us how we piece these together for dates!
Ho ho how was it dated!!!!? Same past decay assumptive dating?? I'd bet it was. Useless.
Hey dates aside, since you can't begin to support them, remember that the split started at the same time as Babel!!! That means that man could no longer communicate much. He had to resort to picture writing! The Sumerians , and Egyptians evidence this, and they are the first guys off the block in history!! The evidence mounts.
Thats what you think. Show us the basis for this calendar!!!

Your denial is again noted. An ever increasing fog over the facts of reality as more evidence is presented. You again base your denial on your position for which you advance not one iota of evidence. The field of Egyptian research is vast and comprehensive and it grows more so every day as new finds add to the previous knowledge. You have not provided any refutation of the evidence provided, no counter argument based on facts. I cannot be responsible for your failure to look at the facts. All you have is denial.

You have yet to demonstrate your date of 4,400 years ago is based on any kind of evidence. You have nada but denial.

Now, yes. But pollen and dust could have been deposited differently. If, for example, we had better growing rates, why not more pollen?? Why just assume the same state stuff for no reason?

Pollen then dust then snow. More or less pollen is irrelevant. Please try to deal with the evidence.

Science prefers to operate from the here and now, and try to project that to infinity and beyond. They better start projecting some proof, their act has grown stale.

Science takes what it knows, looks at the evidence and sees how things were in past times based on the evidence. What is stale is your continued state of denial of reality, bankrupt of any supporting evidence, and in spite of the evidence that you are wrong.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added to decay explanation
expanded section on missing rings


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 06-20-2007 11:09 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by simple, posted 06-22-2007 3:35 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 37 of 90 (406773)
06-22-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by simple
06-22-2007 3:35 AM


So how did those snow, pollen and dust layers form?
So, you admit that the only evidence on earth, a tree older than the flood, by your reckoning, that was actually cut down to see plainly, is missing the rings for about the period of the split. Interesting. In fact it is astounding.

The plain fact is that both trees, "Methuselah" (4,839 years old) and "Prometheus" (4,887 years old), have rings that extend substantially beyond your arbitrarily voodoo woo dreamtime date of 4400 years ago, and which do in fact have rings that cover your so-called "period of the split", means that you are ignoring the plain evidence before you. This is not rational, it is not faith, it is pathological.

path·o·log·i·cal –adj. 1. Of or relating to pathology.
2. Relating to or caused by disease.
3. Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: a pathological liar.

You have a pathological inability to deal with plain evidence that conflicts with your voodoo woo dreamtime world.

Denial of WHAT!!!?? Only your fables that are unproven in the extreme about the unknown state of the past universe.

Denial of the evidence.

de·lu·sion –noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

A pathological inability to deal with evidence that contradicts your voodoo woo dreamtime world.

Again I call you out, your claims are balderdash as far as dates go. Really. You are in delusion if you think you gave any semblance of evidence for dates at all. You can't. You won't. I guarantee it.

Your pathological inability to deal with the reality of Egyptian history is noted. Your failure once again to provide some kind of substantiation no matter how tenuous for your voodoo woo dreamtime world timing is also noted.

{abe} For further reading on the Egyptian Astronomical Calendar see:
Egyptian calendar, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ASTRONOMY in Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egyptian astronomy
Dating confirmed by the astronomy. {/abe}

All you have is the old song and dance about fallen trees nearby, that have similar rings, that you assume took a coon's age to grow as well. Meaningless if the past state was not the same, hence, growth rates. Your ignoring this, and inability to really even address it speaks volumes.
This is just a repetition of your previous baseless, deep seated assumption with no basis in any kind of evidence of a same state past. It is fantasy. It is in conflict with the facts of reality, and thus it is delusion. The facts of reality happen to be, as all can see right here and now, you cannot prove your myth of a same state past. Really.
NO evidence is contrary to a starting point from a different past that had ratios in place. Get a grip.
OK, so what exactly is missing here? You say now that the rings from the 4400 level are here?? Well, do you have a pic? Do you have any info on what they look like, carbon ratios, etc?? What do you mean that the rings are missing before the tree germinated??
If a tree did not start to grow, why would there be rings?? If it did grow, why are there missing rings?
Climate correlation is unknown in the past, if it was different. Look, either there are missing rings or not here, make up your mind! What eroded away, as you put it? How many rings are missing? (And don't say we can find them in other trees, please, that is ridiculous -if trees could grow in a week) How many in the actual tree are there, and how many missing, and do you really have a clue as to what it is you are talking about here? Forget correcting for anything. Pony up the evidence of how many actual rings are in the actual tree, and forget the fables.
The only fantasy unfolding here is your absolute fable of the past. We see that it is a myth by your lack of science to support your so called science claims.

Your pathological inability to deal with the reality of the tree ring evidence is noted.

Can you tell us what a pre split "RO" was?? If not, how would it be different than expected, precisely??

Doesn't matter what it was, it would still have been the same for all your "pre-split" samples and the result of decay once it started would still be the same value for every sample, and this is contradicted by the evidence. Your pathological inability to deal with contradictory evidence noted.

What we need isan observation of tree rings that are beyond the 4400 amount! Do you have any? If so, what is the ratios?? Let's see, say, a few hundred rings, and the carbon ratios

They are shown on the curve of "14C age" versus dendrochronological age previously provided. All the "14C age" shows is a mathematical conversion of the 14C/12C ratios found in the actual samples. We have these for the tree rings from 4400 to over 4800 from both trees as well as from the abundance of other dendrochronological evidence, not just from the Bristlecone Pines, but from the (two) European Post Oak dendrochronologies as well. The data matches for both climate tree rings and 14C/12C ratios between the three chronologies within 0.5% for over 8,000 years. The evidence is there, you have seen it, and your pathological inability to deal with it rationally is noted.

The evidence of how they build up is not an issue. The question is how did they in the past? And how do we know?
Piece of cake. Pollen blows in, then dust, then snow. Likely this was after the flood. But still in the different past, much of it. So??

So when after the flood did this happen and how fast? What is the period covered that produced the portion of those 40,000 layers that is not annual (as they are now) that would have been laid down in the intervening years by annual deposits? Fill us in on your latest fantasy from your voodoo woo dreamtime world so we can better understand your position.

Let us know the latest in the simple saga of the world.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : further reading on Egyptian calendar

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle?


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by simple, posted 06-22-2007 3:35 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by simple, posted 06-22-2007 5:51 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 39 of 90 (406901)
06-22-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by simple
06-22-2007 5:51 PM


Still missing the point(s)
You now claim the rings in the tree that was cut down extend beyond 4400 deep. Yet you also say the center are of rings is missing. How would you know, then how many we actually have left?? Do the actual, present and accounted for physical rings in Prometheus extend where you say? If they do, what can you tell us about this evidence?
I told you to deal with the actual evidence from before the flood or split, not lump in things PO, and weather forecasts, present decay, etc with the data. Work on that. What are the ratios of rings beyond 4400 if there are any not missing???? That is the issue.

The evidence has always shown rings extending beyond your voodoo woo dreamtime dates. So has the fact that the rest of the rings to the center core of the Prometheus tree are missing due to erosion of the tree trunk (one whole side gone and part of the core). All Bristlecones show similar erosion due to the sever environment at the tree line in the Sierra Nevadas. The ages given are minimums based on the number of rings available to count. Your continued denial of this fact is just evidence of your pathological inability to deal with facts that contradict your voodoo woo dreamtime world.

Don't try and lump it in with dreamed up weather forecasts of a dreamed up past state either.
Remember, that finding other rings in dead trees that complete the record are meaningless if that record only represented months, or years. All that matters is the actual tree.
Well, we are only talking about 1600 years, remember, before the flood. The live trees only cover a few HUNDRED rings beyond the 4400 mark as well!!! That means all we need to look at is the facts and evidence of that few hundred rings. So far, I hear some uncertain noises, unclear claims of missing rings, and nothing put on the table to look at here about those few hundred rings, and the C14 in them, or ratios of C12/14 etc!!! You echo personal incredulity about anything that questions your baseless same past state religious beliefs, but can't pont up squat about the actual issues. Noted.

This is just more repeated denial of the facts. You were the one who said the trees all grew after the flood and set the date for that at 4500 years ago (Message 14). The existing tree rings on both trees extend beyond that date: are you equivocating on this now? Your scenario cannot explain the evidence with your fantasy of a super hyper tropical growth pattern at the top of the Sierra Nevadas in North America.

Generally, I assume that the ice age was after the flood. If so, that means that the ice layers were laid down in the century after the flood, still in the same past state. Then, in the 4400 years since as well.
I would need to look at the specific example, and ask if it might be possible that, before the flood, properties of ice, and etc may have made it possible to have ice piled together.

And now you are proposing a super hyper ice age snow and dust layer pattern at the equator at the same time. This is the type of argument that is based on pure speculation and a total absence of facts and data.

After all, there was a continental separation.
Although my ideas are somewhat different, here is a little mention of it.
" . Some, or all, of these four so-called trenches may simply be submarine canyons or depressions, not trenches. For example, the Peru-Chile “Trench,” which follows the western boundary of South America, is probably a depression resulting from the settling of South America after the flood. (The continents—crushed and thickened during the compression event and loaded with sediments—had to settle into the mantle.)"
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches7.html
If some ice actually represented something being affected by the rapid separation of land masses, why, we would need to toss out the 40,000 layers as some uniform, old age thing.

This totally fails to address the pollen, dust and snow layers, nor does it address the Dunde Ice Cap data in the middle of China's highest desert, the Qaidam Basin, in the middle of the continent. And their correlation with the patten found in South America. And their correlation with climate changes from year to year. This just exhibits one more example of your pathological failure to face the facts and deal with reality.

History is not an issue, it is your bogus dates that are an issue. Rather than pathologically repeating them, back them up.
Look, I already looked into it. If you have some point from your link that actually addresses the issue of HOW the dates are based, cough it up. The heavens of the past are not something people of the present can assume, remember. The new heavens will be different in some ways in appearance. The past state universe also may have been! The basis of the dates is strictly same past assumption. Nothing more Look into it. Of course there is the king lists that are not reliable, with spirits as leaders, etc etc.

Your record for evaluating the evidence is well demonstrated on this thread alone. Unfortunately what it documents is an inability to deal with any evidence that contradicts your voodoo woo dreamtime world. Thus your assertion that you "looked into it" is meaningless, valueless, insignificant. The Egyptian calendar dates before your voodoo woo dreamtime world and the astronomical observations that are involved in it invalidate your still totally unsupported assertion of a different past state that had altered the behavior of the earth and the stars. Please deal rationally with the facts and not indulge your personal fantasies about a voodoo woo dreamtime world.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by simple, posted 06-22-2007 5:51 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 1:04 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 41 of 90 (406980)
06-23-2007 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by simple
06-23-2007 1:04 AM


So called refutation is nothing but conjecture bult on falsehoods, added Suigetsu
So, they either are missing as you say, or extend beyond the split as you also say. Which is it going to be here?? Funny how the erosion picked the pre split rings to pick on, now isn't it???
You say that the number of rings "available to count" are so many. How many, exactlyu are actually there to count!!!!?? And how many are missing. You don't know, do you? These facts you need to try to deal with. Get a grip, man.
Do they, really? Are you sure that some aren't missing?? Make up your mind. Better still buy a clue before rambling on arguing for something.
As for my position, it doesn't matter if the missing rings did turn up!!! Although I am really starting to wonder if even that will happen! Why? Because the rings do not represent years beyond the split.

The tree rings in the Methusula tree are continuous for 4,839 years and the tree rings in the Prometeus tree are continuous for 4,887 years, as noted before several times. Beyond that age there are some missing rings near the core. The facts have not changed, the number of tree rings have not changed. The reality has not changed. The age has not changed. The erosion did not "pick" anything, as there is other wood that extends the chronology beyond the age of these trees: that other evidence was not "picked" for erosion. This too is still fact, still unchanged, still reality. Some of the dead trees were still standing when sampled, and had only died recently, and their rings overlapped those of these two trees extensively while extending beyond the rings of the two trees. Other samples overlapped the rings of those dead but standing trees, extending the chronology further and further until nearly 9000 years are covered.

Funny how in all those rings there is no record of any substantial change in growth pattern, how the 14C content correlates both with the climate patterns of the tree rings and with the ages of the rings. Funny how you cannot deal with this fact at all.

Funny how there are also two other tree ring chronologies from Europe that also correlate for age and 14C content and match the age of the Bristlecone Pines for those almost 9000 years and then some, extending back to 10,434 years ago. Funny how the only way you can deal with this data is to claim it doesn't exist in your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.

Funny how you have absolutely no substantiation for your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.

Not only faster deposition, but I raise the possibility that some ice was piled up in the rapid separation of continents. Speaking of facts and data, the area around Peru would have been affected muchly by that separation. The evidence mounts.
Well, whatever area you look at, we need to ask if there was up piling and etc that went on. If there was, and the Ice age had started already, why not pile up some ice as well? If that happened, why, how do we determine what is what??? Certainly one needs to look closely at the are in question, and sample! If htere was some undisturbed area that had a lot of ice, why maybe one could look at that.

That still does not address the issue of pollen then dust then snow layers nor does it address the layers in the ice in China that matches and correlates with the layers in South America. These two areas are undisturbed. Piled up mean jumbled, turned, disturbed, and the ice layers show no such effects. Sorry your voodoo woo dreamtime magic explanation does not match the facts ... again.

Funny how you cannot address the facts and the correlations of layers with age and climate.

"THE SOTHIC CYCLE
The so-called "sothic cycle" is the third basis for the false "Egyptian calendar."
....

7 - The theoretical sothic cycle does not agree with radiocarbon dating.—pp. 25-26.
"
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/23arch03.htm

Extensive cut and paste from a site that knows nothing about Egyptian chronologies and everything about denial and obfustication. Definitely your kind of site, but unfortunately one that proves nothing. This site relies on Velikovsky as a source of truth. Planets colliding. LOL. The site uses pure argument from incredulity and is designed to con the gullible like you into buying the book.

6 - The ancients did not know the correct length of the solar year. It is actually 365.2422 days in length

They had it down to 365 days which is 99.9% correct, and way better than any other calendar in the area during that era (and several to follow). Compared to the Egyptian calendar the other calendars were a complete mess. They were able to predict the annual flood of the Nile based on the solar cycle built in to the calendar.

A true solar year would change the calculation from 1,460 to 1,507 years. That is a difference of 47 years. There is an argument as to which time span is to be used for the complete cycle.

This is false obfustication and misdirection (or a complete misunderstanding) as that is not what the 1460 year cycle is based on, the cycle is based on the observed motion of the star in the sky and recording the changes over the centuries. This is also why the Egyptians were the first to propose the use of an additional day once every four years.

All this site proves is that the Egyptian astronomical calendar is at least 99.9% correct in spite of all the sturm und drang that they use. They also listed the seasons that are still in use in Egypt today, unchanged from the time of the calendars first known use over 4,693 years ago.

Again you have not dealt with the evidence, nor have you provided any refutation of the evidence. All you have demonstrated is denial and a pathological refusal to confront reality.

{abe} Just for yucks and grins. let's add in your favorite set of data to misinterpret and misunderstand:

Lake Suigetsu Varves

Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a chronology extending over a period of 29,100 years. They were also able to measure and match the "C-14 age" of samples taken with the core to the ages and Carbon-14 levels documented for the tree ring data for an overlap period starting 8,830 years ago. This is a "floating" chronology, as it does not have accurate data on the present due to the coring technology and the characteristics of the recent formed bottom (silty clay) before it gets compacted by time and later depositions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

quote:
A 75-m long continuous core (Lab code, SG) and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial period.

To reconstruct the calendar time scale, we counted varves, based on gray-scale image analyses of digital pictures, in a 10.43- to 30.45-m-deep section, producing a 29,100-year-long floating chronology. Because we estimated the varve chronology of older than ~20,000 yr B.P. (19-m depth of SG core) by counting in a single core section, the error of the varve counting increases with depth, and the accumulated error at 40,000 cal yr B.P. would be less than ~2000 years, assuming no break in the sediment (12).

The 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratios of more than 250 terrestrial macrofossils (leaves, twigs, and insect wings) in the sediments were measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Groningen AMS facility (13), after proper sample pretreatment (14). The floating varve chronology was connected to the old part of the absolute tree-ring chronology (2, 15) by 14C wiggle matching (16), resulting in an absolute calendar age covering the time span from 8830 to 37,930 cal yr B.P. (17). The age beyond 37,930 cal yr B.P. is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial.


If the above link is not accessible try http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html (1)

Note that annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr B.P if correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and that this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, with some assumptions made below the 37,930 cal yr BP level. As the data below this 37,930 cal yr BP level does not use annual varve layers but an estimated rate of sedimentation, we cannot use it for our minimum annual layer counts other than to say that the earth is older than the annual varves show. Again we can be minimalist: if we take 2,000 years as the error in the data at maximum depth counted, then either of these two scenarios can apply:

  • This chronology is totally independent of the one from the tree-ring data in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 12,326 + 29,100 +/- 2,000 = 39,436 years old (with a possible world wide flood in between? Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on later information eh?), OR
  • These chronologies overlap as determined by matching the "C-14 age" curves, and the minimum age of the earth is 37,930 +/- 2,000 = 35,930 years BP = 35,987 years old in 2007.

Minimum age of the earth = 35,987 years based on this data.

Note that the climatological information from the varves matches that from dendrochronology for the period of overlap, including the Younger Dryas. Note further that this extends annual chronological dating to the archaeological dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. We have verified a chronological age for these artifacts, and we have hardly begun to get into the age of Homo sapiens, the hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth.

Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating (albeit making some assumptions for before 37,930 years BP).

Carbon-14 Correlations to Lake Varves

We discussed the calibration curves for Carbon-14 above, using them to show the Carbon-14 environment and making a clear distinction between the levels of Carbon-14 being measured and the age determined by calculation from the measured levels of Carbon-14 in the rings. We also noted that these calibration curves have been extended by other later work.

In the case of the Lake Suigetsu Lake Varves they present a calibration curve as well, and we can use this to represent the Carbon-14 environment in the same way we did for the tree-rings - as an indicator of what the levels of Carbon-14 were when the organic samples were alive and growing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

quote:

Click to enlarge

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles and their match to the green tree-ring data. Additionally we need to look at the number of cores involved with the data for a measure of their replication of data.
quote:
Because we estimated the varve chronology of older than ~20,000 yr B.P. (19-m depth of SG core) by counting in a single core section, the error of the varve counting increases with depth, and the accumulated error at 40,000 cal yr B.P. would be less than ~2000 years, assuming no break in the sediment (12).

The 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratios of more than 250 terrestrial macrofossils (leaves, twigs, and insect wings) in the sediments were measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Groningen AMS facility (13), after proper sample pretreatment (14). The floating varve chronology was connected to the old part of the absolute tree-ring chronology (2, 15) by 14C wiggle matching (16), resulting in an absolute calendar age covering the time span from 8830 to 37,930 cal yr B.P. (17).


If the above link is not accessible try http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html (1)

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles and their match to the green tree-ring data. Additionally we need to look at the number of cores involved with the data for a measure of their replication of data. This graph shows the previous dendrochronology calibration curve, the Lake Suigetsu data and some other data from marine corals. On this graph we have the Carbon-14 levels (represented as "Radiocarbon Age") shown for multiple cores from 8830 to ~20,000 years on the horizontal time scale, and data (I count ~50 samples) from ~20,000 to 37,930 years from one core correlated with counted varve layers, and then eight more organic samples where the horizontal age datum is assumed from sediment thickness (and which are not included in discussion here). This means that most of the 250 samples occurred in the area of most reliability - where there were multiple cores.

Again we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the amount of Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the leaves, twigs and wings were formed.

What are those amounts? The age calculation is based on the exponential decay curve for a radioactive element with a half-life of 5730 years:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable (2)

t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t1/2

where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.
t = {ln (Nf/No)/-0.69315} x 5730 = -8267 x ln (Nf/No)

Where No is the original level of the C-14 isotope in the sample (when it was alive and growing and absorbing atmospheric C-14), and Nf is the amount remaining. The value for No today is ~0.00000000010% of total organic carbon and Nf is smaller depending on how much time has passed.

Exponential curves look like this:


Click to enlarge

We can calculate (Nf/No) ratios for a number of decay ages and use those with the horizontal time frames to show what the approximate ratios would have been (we could refine those by multiplying by the ratio between the data point elevations and the 1:1 correlation line if we want to get more accurate numbers):

(Nf/No) = e^(t/-8267)

Age (yrs BP) Ratio (Nf/No)
5,730 0.5000 (= 1 half life)
8,000 0.3799
8,500 0.3576
8,830 0.3436
9,000 0.3366
9,500 0.3169
10,000 0.2983
10,500 0.2808
11,000 0.2643
11,460 0.2500 (= 2 half lives)
11,500 0.2488
12,000 0.2342
12,326 0.2251
12,500 0.2204
13,000 0.2075
13,500 0.1953
14,000 0.1839
14,500 0.1731
15,000 0.1629
15,500 0.1534
16,000 0.1444
16,500 0.1359
17,000 0.1279
17,190 0.1250 (= 3 half lives)

(A quick look at data point elevation to 1:1 correlation line ratios for this period on the tree-ring calibration curve previously provided (Message 17 in this thread) shows this ratio to be fairly constant at ~90%, with variations that are ~+/-2% - not enough to make a significant impact on the actual amount of C-14 that we can infer was actually measured.)

These ratios apply to both the tree-ring data and the Lake Suigetsu varve data. This means that to match the levels of C-14 between the two in order to see how they correlate with each other we are matching curves for slopes and general curvature, with the tree-ring data from 0 yr BP to 5,730 BP and then to 12,326 yr BP and the varve data from 8,830 yr BP to 17,190 yr BP and beyond.

Possible sources of error involve C-14 from other than atmospheric sources (use of already aged carbon would mean that there was less C-14 in the original sample, and C-14 made by radioactive interaction in the ground would mean there was more C-14 in the measured sample). There were no radioactive elements in the sediments to artificially raise the measured sample amounts, and in both the tree-ring data and the varve fossil data the organic samples involve atmospheric C-14.

Loss of carbon from the samples by leaching in the lake or other similar processes would not preferentially leach one isotope in favor of the other as they are a purely chemical reaction. This would reduce the amount of both C-14 and C-12 in the samples in proportion to the numbers of atoms of each in the sample, and thus not affect the ratio of C-14 to C-12.

Conclusions

With the continual loss of C-14 with time due to radioactive decay, there is only one period where both the tree-rings and the lake varve fossils will have similar levels of remaining C-14 if they were living, growing and absorbing C-14 from the atmosphere at the same time.

Samples that get carbon-14 only from the same source while living (and that have not been contaminated by other carbon-14 since then) cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

Any mechanism that would not have C-14 decay in the distant past would not match the decay curve shape and this would show up on the calibration curve as a sharply rising line.

Any mechanism that would produce lower C-14 levels in the distant past would not match the decay curve at the point of overlap - it would be too low.

Anyone wanting to invalidate this link between tree-ring age and lake varve age will need to provide a mechanism to produce higher C-14 levels at some point in the distant past for the varves, which then decay down to the tree-ring levels over longer periods of time -- and this would mean that the lake varves are even older than listed.

Because actual amount of C-14 in the lake varves and the tree-ring samples comes from the same source - the atmosphere at the time that each sample was living, growing and absorbing C-14 from the atmosphere - matching the actual C-14 levels between them will provide an accurate estimate of age for the start of the varve floating chronology - objects that are the same age cannot have different C-14 levels because they grew in the same "C-14 environment".

Anyone wanting to invalidate this link will need to provide a mechanism to produce false amounts of C-14 in one system that doesn't happen in the other. This has not been observed.

Anyone wanting to invalidate the lake varves as being annual varves will need to provide a mechanism that produces a continual change in the decay of C-14 so that the curve can be compressed in the horizontal scale and match the curvature of the 5730 half-life curve. This has not been observed.

The logical conclusion is that this Carbon-14 data (the actual amount of C-14, not the calculated age) confirms the lake varve chronological age.

Minimum age of the earth > 35,930 years based on this data.

Enjoy.



References

  1. Anonymous "Lake Varves" Genesis Research. updated 28 Oct 1998. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html
  2. Brain, Marshall, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works" HowStuffWorks.com. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable
  3. Kitagawa, H., et al., "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production" Science 279, 1187 (1998); DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1187
    accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187

This data correlates with the tree ring data for both climate and 14C content, and it also correlates with the Ice Core layers from S. America and China for climate and annual layers.

You now need a mechanism to explain tree rings, ice layers and varves all correlating for age and 14C content and climate. {/abe}

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added suigetsu data

Edited by RAZD, : '


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 1:04 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 10:04 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 43 of 90 (406995)
06-23-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
06-23-2007 9:13 AM


Moving forward suggestions
a) whether physical laws have remained unchanged over at least the past 6000 years or so. As this is a scientific topic it seems well suited for you.

So far the evidence provided is consistent with these laws not changing, nor has simple\keys provided any data, biblical or scientific, to detail and support such a change. This can be expanded, so I will see what I can do on it.

And b) whether the Bible provides support for Simple's proposals. Biblical support for creationist positions is perhaps a less appealing topic for you.
... include Biblical and religious support as well as support from the natural world.

I don't see how the opinions of others ("religious support") counts as evidence of anything but human opinion (which is subject to errors and mistakes, malfeasances and intentional misdirections). His recent cite of a website that uses Velikovsky to refute the Egyptian timeline is an example of this kind of poor and mistaken opinion. No, to be evidence it must be clearly spelled out in a biblical passage that is not subject to alternative interpretations.

So far simple\keys has been unable or unwilling to provide such evidence, relying instead on hand-waving and denial.

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : .


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 06-23-2007 9:13 AM Admin has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 45 of 90 (407131)
06-24-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by simple
06-23-2007 10:04 PM


Constant Constants & the age of the Universe
Constant Constants

Distance to SN1987A

Reference 1: The Distance to Supernova 1987a by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 25 June 2006, accessed 24JUN07:

quote:
At an earlier stage in its life, the star which exploded gave off material which formed a ring. Light from the supernova eventually bounced off of this ring, and about a year after we saw the explosion, we suddenly saw the ring.

Click to enlarge

Now, imagine a triangle. We know one of the angles - the angle, from here, between the supernova and the ring. And we know the length of one side, in years. From that, high school trigonometry gives us the lengths of the other two sides. The distance is 168,000 light years, ± 3.5%.

A light-year is a measure of distance, specifically the distance light would travel in one earth year at the current speed of light. This is about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km) , so 168,000 light-years would be about 988,000 trillion (1012) miles or ~9.88 x 1017 miles. How do we know this distance is not affected by a change in the speed of light?

Reference 2: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Supernova, A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:12 CST, accessed 24JUN07

quote:
The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.

If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.


Reference 3: SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe, by Todd S. Greene, originally written 3/16/2000, last revised 9/14/2000, accessed 24JUN07.

quote:
1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km (see note 1 below) = 0.658 light-years
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds (see note 1 below) = 0.000224 degrees
3. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years

Note that this is independent of the speed of light, thus it cannot - alone - confirm the speed of light at the time of the nova, but it does confirm the stellar distance involved.

The next question is whether we can confirm that the speed of light was relatively constant during the time it took the light to travel from SN1987A to earth.

The Speed of Light

Back to ref 2:

quote:
Our first argument is based on a straightforward observation of pulsars. Pulsars put out flashes at such precise intervals and clarity that only the rotation of a small body can account for it (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.498). Indeed, the more precise pulsars keep much better time than even the atomic clocks on Earth! In the mid1980s a new class of pulsars, called millisecond pulsars, were discovered which were rotating hundreds of times each second! When a pulsar, which is a neutron star smaller than Manhattan Island with a weight problem (about as heavy as our sun), spins that fast it is pretty close to flying apart. Thus, in observing these millisecond pulsars, we are not seeing a slow motion replay as that would imply an actual spin rate which would have destroyed those pulsars. We couldn't observe them spinning that fast if light was slowing down. Consequently, we can dispense with the claim that the light coming from SN1987A might have slowed down.

A more quantitative argument can also be advanced for those who need the details. Suppose that light is slowing down according to some exponential decay curve. An exponential decay curve is one of Mother Nature's favorites. It describes radioactive decay and a host of other observations. If the speed of light were really slowing down, then an exponential decay curve would be a reasonable curve to start our investigation with ...

We want the light in our model to start fast enough so that the most distant objects in the universe, say 10 billion light-years away, will be visible today. That is, the light must travel 10 billion light-years in the 6000 years which creationists allow for the Earth's age. (A lightyear is the distance a beam of light, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, covers in one year.) Furthermore, the speed of light must decay at a rate which will reduce it to its present value after 6000 years. Upon applying these constraints to all possible exponential decay curves, and after doing a little calculus, we wind up with two nonlinear equations in two variables. After solving those equations by computer, we get the following functions for velocity and distance. The first function gives the velocity of light (light-years per year) t years after creation (t=0). The second function gives the distance (light-years) that the first beams of light have traveled since creation (since t=0).

V(t) = V0 e^(-Kt)
S(t) = 1010(1 e^(-Kt))

V0 = 28,615,783 (The initial velocity for light)
K = 0.00286158 (the decay rate parameter)

With these equations in hand, it can be shown that if light is slowing down then equal intervals of time in distant space will be seen on Earth as unequal intervals of time. That's our test for determining if light has slowed down. But, where can we find a natural, reliable clock in distant space with which to do the test?

As it turns out, Mother Nature has supplied some of the best clocks around. They are the pulsars. Pulsars keep time like the Earth does, by rotating smoothly, only they do it much better because they are much smaller and vastly heavier. The heavier a spinning top is the less any outside forces can affect it. Many pulsars rotate hundreds of times per second! And they keep incredibly precise time. Thus, we can observe how long it takes a pulsar to make 100 rotations and compare that figure to another observation five years later. Thus, we can put the above creationist model to the test. Of course, in order to interpret the results properly, we need to have some idea of how much change to expect according to the above creationist model. That calculation is our next step.

Let's start by considering a pulsar which is 170,000 light-years away, which would be as far away as SN1987A. Certainly, we can see pulsars at that distance easily enough. In our creationist model, due to the initial high velocity of light, the light now arriving from our pulsar (light beam A) took about 2149.7 years to reach Earth. At the time light beam A left the pulsar it was going 487.4686 times the speed of light. The next day (24 hours after light beam A left the pulsar) light beam B leaves; it leaves at 487.4648 times the speed of light. As you can see, the velocity of light has already decayed a small amount. (I shall reserve the expression "speed of light" for the true speed of light which is about 186,000 miles per second.) Allowing for the continuing decay in velocity, we can calculate that light beam A is 1.336957 light-years ahead of light beam B. That lead distance is not going to change since both light beams will slow down together as the velocity of light decays.

When light beam A reaches the Earth, and light is now going its normal speed, that lead distance translates into 1.336957 years. Thus, the one-day interval on our pulsar, the actual time between the departures of light beams A and B, wrongly appears to us as more than a year! Upon looking at our pulsar, which is 170,000 light-years away, we are not only seeing 2149.7 years into the past but are seeing things occur 488.3 times more slowly than they really are!

Exactly 5 years after light beam A left the pulsar, light beam Y departs. It is traveling at 480.5436 times the speed of light. Twenty-four hours after its departure light beam Z leaves the pulsar. It is traveling at 480.5398 times the speed of light. Making due allowances for the continual slowing down of the light, we can calculate that light beam Y has a lead in distance over light beam Z of 1.318767 light-years. Once again, when light beam Y reached Earth, when the velocity of light had become frozen at its present value, that distance translates into years. Thus, a day on the pulsar, the one defined by light beams Y and Z, appears in slow motion to us. We see things happening 481.7 times slower than the rate at which they actually occurred.

Therefore, if the above creationist model is correct, we should see a difference in time for the above two identical intervals, a difference which amounts to about 1.3%. Of course, the above calculations could be redone with much shorter intervals without affecting the 1.3% figure, being that the perceived slowdown is essentially the same for the smaller intervals within one day. As a result, an astronomer need only measure the spin of a number of pulsars over a few years to get definitive results. Pulsars keep such accurate time that a 1.3% difference--even after hundreds of years--would stand out like a giant redwood in a Kansas wheat field!


Such time discrepancy has not been observed in any pulsar. Thus by two different methods we confirm the speed of light is constant within our ability to measure it for the time period covered by the travel of light from SN1987A to earth. This of course ALSO means that the minimum age of the universe was 168,000 years (+/- 3%) in 1987 (when the nova was observed) ... AND it confirms the age of the light coming from the nova is ~168,000 years, so that any observed phenomena that occurred during that nova would have occurred 168,000 years ago.

What else can we tell from the evidence? Radioactive decay was observed during the nova, so the question is whether it matches the decay rates today, or whether it was significantly different. We start with it being non-zero decay due to it being observed.

Decay Rates 168,000 years ago

Reference 4: Evidence about Constants Being the Same in the Distant Past, by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 27 December 1998, accessed 24JUN07.

quote:
One nice piece of evidence comes from Supernova 1987a, which was special because it was not very far away. Theory predicts that such a supernova would create about 0.1 solar masses of nickel-56, which is radioactive. Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56.

We've confirmed the distance and the steady speed of light for the duration of travel from SN1987A to earth, and now we have confirmed that decay at today's decay rates for Cobalt 56 occurred 168,000 years ago. Due to the physics involved you cannot have one isotope have the same rate of decay and another be different. In fact there are a lot of inter-related elements of physics, astronomy and geology.

Ref 4 again:

quote:
Another evidence is the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo, in Gabon. This reactor was actually just an unusually rich body of radioactive ore. So rich, in fact, that when it was formed, it approached critical mass. Studies of the unusual elements found there indicate that reactors acted the same two billion years ago as they do now. If the fine structure constant had been different by as little as one part in a million, the Oklo measurements should have detected that.

Another evidence is in the light from distant galaxies. When you pass starlight through a prism, you can see spectral lines, which just means that there is an excess (or shortage) of light at specific frequencies. Certain atoms (or molecules or reactions) produce distinctive spectral lines. Modern physics has a solid theory for such things, and we can calculate the frequencies from fundamental constants. Therefore, if we look at a distant galaxy, we can tell if certain fundamental constants are different there. Most of the references below discuss this.

Other methods mentioned in the references:

  • Searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars. These would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from.
  • Searches for long term (secular) changes in the orbits of the moon and the earth, as measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns.
  • Ranging data for the distance from earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft.
  • Data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16.
  • Observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms.
  • Searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements.
  • Absorption lines of quasars. These measure fine structure and hyperfine splittings.
  • Laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

Non-physicists may be surprised that all of these things are interconnected. For example, the radioactive decay of some elements is governed by the strong force. So, a change in their decay rate implies a different binding energy. Energy curves space, so a different binding energy implies a change in the amount of gravity, and that implies a change in orbital motion.

If you followed that, I said that if a planet has been in the same orbit for a long time, then Uranium-235's radioactive decay rate has been unchanged for that same amount of time. And so on. Physics creates a huge web of connections between astronomy and geology. You may find something debatable about any one of these results. However, it is very hard to argue against a great many independent results, each of which fits into a connected web, and each of which places strong constraints on how fast change could be happening.


What this means is that confirming the decay rate for Cobalt 56 also means that gravity was the same 168,000 years ago, and thus so was the earths orbit and it's seasons. This is but a small portion of the evidence that is available that confirm the constancy of the constants used in science.

Again, to argue against this means being able to deal with all the correlations, not just denial of the evidence.

Decay was alive and well and the earths seasons were controlled by the orbit of the earth around the sun, just as they are today. It is not an assumption, it is a confirmed fact, based on the evidence.

The age of the universe is at least 168,000 years (the age of the earth is not affected by this evidence). It is actually much older, but this is as much as this evidence confirms.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 10:04 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 6:58 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 46 of 90 (407135)
06-24-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by simple
06-23-2007 10:04 PM


Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
Well, let us finish the tree ring part here, with you being real clear if you have any idea what is going on. You seem to be claiming here that there are 4887 actual rings in the tree, we can see, and count, as well as a bunch of missing ones. If what you say is true, would not they come up with a much older date for the tree, taking into account, maybe hundreds of missing rings as well? So, would they not say it was guessed to be about, say, 5200 years old? Something seems wrong with the picture here, and your claims. It is less than clear. That usually tells me the person I am talking to doesn't really know what he is talking about. Perhaps you could clear this up.
I used to think it was a bit funny, but now I see that there appear to be missing rings! How can we tell if there is any differences? Is this not the only tree on earth cut down that has more rings than years to the flood?? Or do you have a core sample from Methusula or etc?? Or do you think we ought to simply go on your 'hunch de jour'??

This information has already been presented several times. Your apparent inability to digest it cannot be put down to ignorance anymore due to the previous presentations. That means we are left with (1) inability to comprehend the facts, (2) delusion where your fantasy world does not include these facts or (3) intentional misrepresentation on your part. So far the evidence is that it is (1) or (2).

The other wood doesn't matter. All it represents is trees that grew before Prometheus, but unless the state and growth rate is known, it is useless trivia! That leaves those pesky missing rings that "somehow" happen to be missing. Why are they missing on a live tree? (that was alive when it got cut down)
One might have to look at asking whether the new state affected the live trees, but not dead ones? Also, how do they know where to start if the core is missing? I suppose they guestimate.
Funny how you can't stop playing lump it all together, and pretend the past was the same, and make a little lump graph you think is impressive. Work on that.

This still ignores and fails to confront the reality of wood that was alive during the early growth of Prometheus and that matches it ring for ring in climate pattern and 14C content. This information has also been presented several times, so it too cannot be put down to ignorance.

Actually, for your same state past myth, this is precisely what we can say about it, literally.
'Funny how you have absolutely no substantiation for your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.' And yet, you call it science!!?? Shame. At least I have ancient documentation of the holy bible. Better than your nothing.
See, if the fundamental forces (and your brother might not like this one) were different, and light, etc, this could affect what we see in space. It could also help explain things in a way that needs no dark energy, big bang, dark matter, and etc. If the atoms could be affected, and the spins, charges, etc, why not some orbits of bigger bodies?? It's a brave new world. Of course this fits with the new universe, or heavens coming in the bible as well. It might also explain why there seems to have been some remnant memories, or wisdom or assumptions and knowledge passed down to the ancients about the heavens and earth. That is why maybe many of their ideas were wonky and wrong. They referred to memories and observations of man pre split?!

Your different past has been refuted. See Message 45. There was no "split" nor significant change in the past. This is a falsified concept, and any continued use of it without addressing the evidence will just be more blatant denial of reality.

Also, here is an older summation of the concept of the different past, with bible support. For example how the sun is forever, so it could not exist forever in this state, as science tells us.
http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/

Your source is just opinion, and it has been falsified as well. It may cite certain biblical passages but the argument is based on a falsified interpretation of them.

Fine. We had water from below coming up to water the earth in the past. We had wind. We had areas, likely subject to regular flooding as well, with all the water. We had fantastic potential for hyper growth in things like plankton, etc. We had, in other words, everything needed to make layers in a hurry. If we quickly assume that there was no up piling here, of the layers again, let's do some math.
If we put down 3 varves a day, and we had 1700 years to do it, how many is that??
365 x 1700 = 620500 So, we have 620500 x 3 = 1,861,500 Now, we add the 4400 years since the split to that.

Your pre-split fantasy voodoo woo dreamtime world is falsified. Even without it you do not deal with the facts of the matter: the silt that forms the layers between the diatoms does not settle fast enough for those layers to form between your shorter blooms. It does not work. It does not match the varve data.

It would also require that all those hyper-varve formation layers would have very similar 14C content. They don't. The 14C content data also invalidate your pre-split fantasy voodoo woo dreamtime world. You need to deal with all the evidence.

Of course piled up ice now means jumbled. I was simply wondering if the shuffling of the deck in the past, under different state laws may have been different. I do notice that the ice is in a piled up mountainous area. Coincidence? Another issue we might want to consider is if there was a great bit of flood water, with pollen, and dust, etc in it, could get fast frozen? I mean what possibilities have they really looked at? It seems they have a same past old age basic assumption, and they try to build only on that. I am happy to rule out fast freezing, and piling up, and a few other things, if the evidence warrants. But I prefer to feel confident that what we see has to have been laid down uniformly first. Then, I see no problem with numbers. For example varves. Sometimes we had many hundreds of thousands. All can be explained in a different past. I don't see why 40,000 ice layers would be a challenge if need be. Baby steps.

Again you fail to deal with the correlations of age and climate between the ice and the varves. Your inability to explain the correlation means that your position is false. You need to deal with all the evidence and all the correlations or you are not dealing with the reality of the evidence.

You are skirting the issue. I pasted this because I have seen some of the points in other work. For example, there was a decision on what the dog star, or whatever had to have been somewhere in the first few centuries AD, if I recall. It was just a decision based on looking at the stars, and what we see there in this present state, etc. In other words, the calendar is literally SET to present PO assumptions only. Therefore, you NEED to establish it was a same state past to make that valid. Otherwise it is baseless opinion, not observation, testing, etc.
PS There is plenty of secular sites I can use for support about the basis of the dates for Egypt. You must conceed the issue, or defend your dates. En garde.

I have now demonstrated that the state of the past was consistent for at least 168,000 years. This also falsifies your claims on Egyptian dates and the false arguments you've used. The dates given still stand uncontested by any argument from you that address the reality of the evidence.

Your pathological inability to digest data cannot be put down to ignorance due to the previous presentations. Thus we are left with either

  1. basic inability to comprehend the facts,
  2. some delusion where your fantasy world does not include reality or
  3. intentional misrepresentation on your part.
So far the observed evidence based on the material of your posts is that it is (1) or (2). Perhaps a combination of the two.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 10:04 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 7:45 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 49 of 90 (407171)
06-24-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by simple
06-24-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Constants only Constant since Observed, Observed for 168,000 years ago.
You failed to address all the evidence:

Distance confirmed
Speed of Light confirmed
Decay confirmed
Rate of decay confirmed
Therefore no changes

No matter how much you post, if you don't address all the evidence you are missing the picture. Anomalies don't refute the data. SN 2006gy is fundamentally different (massive) from SN1987A, so you can't apply the same criteria.

The observations confirmed 168,000 year old decay of cobalt 56 matches current day earth rates.

Your current several ad hoc off the cuff ideas don't match the data, ergo they are false.

One further note is that for there to be a high speed of light at some time in the past means that more distant objects are seen in increasing slow motion. This does not match observations either. What we see of the spin of distant galaxies is that the spin is too fast to explain with the observed mass distribution -- this is why dark matter is invoked to explain the fast rotations -- and this means that, if anything, the speed of light would have been slower in the past and this means the universe is older yet...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 6:58 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:11 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 90 (407174)
06-24-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by simple
06-24-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
So you want to stick to your hunch. Fine. The tree rings that grew and maybe died before the split, are not relevant. Unless you thought no trees grew before the split, or the flood, or some such other hunch. Lurkers note here that the missing rings were not addressed. Also, that the pre 4400 ring level carbon ratios and etc were not even dealt with. I mean, if you can't deal with the issue at hand, when asked, you might as well just chat on about how fast a little chicken can run away, or some such other unrelated topic.
If the rings are missing, how can we tell it matches ring for ring, let alone carbon content??? Perhaps you could show us the carbon content of the missing rings. Just to see what we are working with here. Hopefully you are not talking through your hat here.
Also, what about the rings on the deadwood that are actually there? What carbon content is present there that would be at odds with a different state past??? Precisely? Let's see what you got, and remember none of that lumping business.

You and any lurkers can go back and read the posts and see that you are the one missing the information already presented. Go back and review if you are interested in the truth, or stick by your fantasy that your denial and ignorance has somehow transformed data. It's still there.

Been there, done that, walked all over it, and came back laughing. Your myth is a falsified concept.
Great. So let the rest of us in on your little imagined falsifications of the biblical case for a different past and future, now, will you?
Surprise. You have not even addressed the state of the past yet, let alone falsified your way out of a paper bag.

As is no surprise to anyone reading this thread, you dodged the issue and took off on a tangent. Once again you failed to address all the evidence. Most specifically the speed of light issue.

So your whole point here is that the silt had to be deposited at the same rate as now. I see. And why would that be? Sounds like you rest on a lot of assumptions here.

If the silt wouldn't settle at the same rate the diatoms wouldn't either, end result the same. We are dealing with relative rates of settling, regardless of your invalidated concept of things being different. Your failure to understand the problem you are up against is noted.

Why would some similar 14 C content be required somewhere, exactly? Remember, that the carbon, if aquired a different way, such as in the growth process, need not be at some wild different levels at all. That is silly conjecture.

This has been explained several times. Your failure to comprehend the problem you are up against is noted.

The climate pre split and flood you know what about, exactly? That is where the climate might matter a little, after all the object is not to correlate things just in your fantasy past myth. This is news??! So, go ahead and correlate the actual pre split ice and weather. That should be amusing. We wait patiently for that. Just don't try and correlate it to the present state. We already know how this stuff works.

Your failure to deal with the problem you are faced with is noted. It is not my job to do your work, but to show you what the problems are with it: you need to provide the explanation for all the correlations.

All I need to do is note that all the correlations and all the evidence are completely consistent with 14C decay, climate patterns and annual depositions of tree rings, ice layers and lake varves.

If you can't even come close to matching these correlations and data your model is insufficient. If your model is invalidated by some of the evidence and correlations then it is falsified. So far the record is that it has been contradicted.

In other words you are choking on the dating Egypt thing here,

Like the rest of the information available here you are the one failing to confront the evidence.

Maybe you ought to stick to your strong suits,

Based on your posts, your strong suits appear to be incomprehension, denial, ignorance, misrepresentation and repeating falsehoods. I am not responsible for your failures.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 7:45 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:36 PM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 90 (407241)
06-25-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
06-24-2007 10:11 PM


Constancy of Constants STILL not addressed
No, I covered that. Distance is no matter, who cares, if the former light could get here in jig time?? Present light speed is not even an issue. Decay happens yes, but if you mean decay in the deep space, no, we haven't hashed that out et at all. We saw that there were a plethora of assumptions to arrive a t a conclusion that was stacked with PO state things from the getgo.

Not really. Let's see if I can make this simple enough.

(1) SN1987A is a known distance of 168,000 light-years (9.88x10^17 miles) +/-3% from the earth. You accept this distance (good thing seeing as it is based on simple trigonometry).

(2) The spectral lines from the nova show the formation of cobalt-56 from nickel-56 decay (and nickel-56 formation from atomic fusion), and then the decay of cobalt-56 according to the exponential decay curve matching the current half-life of 77.1 days:

quote:
Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56.

This means that decay occurred and that it must be proportional to the speed of light: double the speed of light, (c), and you double the rate of decay (halve the half-life), 10x(c) means 10x the decay rate (half-life/10), etc.

This totally contradicts your claim of no decay prior to your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world no matter how you cut the speed of light. There are other problems that are associated with hyper-fast decay rates, not the least of which is the amount of material needed in any ore to reach critical mass and obliterate itself in an atomic fission explosion such as we produce with our puny atomic bombs.

The only logical position to match your claims of no decay and faster speed of light for some "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world is that this observed decay on SN1987A occurred after your so called "split" -- unfortunately this also means that the speed of light is the current rate and that this occurred more than 168,000 years ago.

You get one or the other but not both: accepting decay rates proportional to the speed of light means accepting today's rates for the 14C dates from the tree-rings and lake varves as valid, or that some existing ore deposits could not exist as they would have blown themselves up. This means that your "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world occurred at least 35,987 years ago (and we'll get to older dates with other evidence).

Either way your "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world date of 4,500\4,400 years ago is invalidated. Totally impossible either way. Contradicted by the evidence.

".One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system..."
Now why on earth would we assume that?
ASSUMING a dreamed up scenario where there was 5 times the ratio in our system existed for some x files unknown made up silly reason!

First, cobalt-57 has nothing to do with the observed formation and decay of cobalt-56 -- they are different isotopes formed by different processes, with cobalt-56 coming from the decay of nickel-56 (half-life 6.1 days, also observed in the nova data). In other words the observed decay of cobalt-56 according to exponential curve matching 77.1 day half-life is STILL uncontested. This is a red-herring logical fallacy.

Second, you continually complain about scientists applying what we know from current day in our solar system to everything, and now you complain that the don't apply what we know from current day in our solar system but instead look at the evidence to see what it says: you can't have it both ways.

(3) The speed of light is STILL not addressed. The evidence shows that there has been no significant variation in the speed of light for all the time scientists have studied it on earth (although early estimates were fairly wild estimates compared to measurements today). Likewise observations in the universe show no effect that would be caused by a faster speed of light, from pulsars to the rotation of galaxies.

False, and this demonstrates that you are not comprehending what is being said. There was no different speed of our present light in a present state universe. So the laws you grab at here do not in any way apply.

You don't understand what you are up against. There is no evidence of a different past, and your claim of no decay in the past is still refuted by SN1987A regardless of how you cut the speed of light.

Failure to deal with all the evidence means you are missing the picture.

Then, we have the missing nutrino star, and the black hole as well.

Missing evidence is just that: missing. That alone does not prove anything. This too does not address the issue of the observed formation and decay of cobalt-56 matching the rate of decay we see here on earth today. This is another red-herring logical fallacy.

Which means the bible was right all along, and you my friend, really have not known what you were talking about for a good while now.

Seeing as you have not provided any reference to decay of cobalt-56 or the speed of light from the bible it seems that all you have for an argument is denial of evidence, ignoring evidence, logical fallacies and wishful thinking. Hardly what I would call a foundation for intelligent rational debate. Certainly it does not begin to refute the facts.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:11 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 06-26-2007 2:02 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 90 (407620)
06-27-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
06-26-2007 2:02 AM


Adds up to delusion
Now, in the no decay in the different past model, to begin with, it does not mean no isotopes. It just means a different process.
The end result, with the spiritual, would be that it lasts forever. So, what is decay now, means nothing in a different past persay.

ie - Imagine a different universe ... one where the laws of physics don't apply ...

If we looked at the info through a different past filter, instead of a same past filter, we could still expect to see isotopes. For example, in the creation of the universe. Earth was created first, days before the stars. That means that the stars were made so that they could be watched from earth, being made!
But I don't cut the speed of light, ease up on the strawmen here. I have a different light, in a different universe.
Well, since you seems to have somehow missed it (whooosh) let's address it here and now. The light was different in the past, and how fast it could trverse the different state space and universe. So don't keep coming back to some bogus change of our light speed. No.

ie - Imagine this different universe has a different kind of light ... one where "speed" doesn't apply as transmission is instantaneous ...

Also note that I see no decay, not hyper fast decay in the different state. Therefore, 1987 a either was an in split process event, and PO state, or, it was a time affected, from our center of the universe perspective type of thing.
As explained, no!! There was no decay pre split.

ie - That this "other" universe, with it's "different" light has "split" from the universe we know and measure and observe and otherwise interact with ... they are not the same ...

The fact that you can't even make up your mind what you want this imaginary universe to do is telling, but let's pursue the matter:

(1) the "different light" is instantaneous, therefore it has no wave motion\particle oscillation behavior (these are time dependent)

(2) such "different light" is incapable of carrying energy (which is part of this universe that we know and measure and observe and otherwise interact with, because energy is a function of the wave motion\particle oscillation of light

(3) such "different light" could be all around us right now, but we are unable to see it because it has no wave motion\particle oscillation that allows the energy to be absorbed by our sensing mechanisms

(4) such "different light" would also not affect plant growth as plants would not be able to absorb energy from such light

(5) this "different light" is not the observed (normal) light from distant stars, and (as you say) it doesn't affect this normal light we see coming from SN1987A in any way (speed, spectrum distribution, etc)

(6) any observation of decay - the time dependent change in the quantity of radioactive isotopes - in this universe, either on earth or in space (as shown on SN1987A) is evidence that it occurred since the imaginary split

I could keep going, but the logical conclusion is that your imaginary universe is just that: imaginary. It is also totally incapable of explaining the evidence that is observed. All you keep doing is thinking up new magic things for this universe to accomplish regardless of how much you contradict yourself and regardless of how little of the evidence is explained.

There is no evidence for an imaginary universe of magical instant light, and we can sum this up with:

Simple World:
Imaginary Universe
Inconsistent with itself
Inconsistent with the evidence
Includes denial of evidence
Adds up to one person's delusion

Science World:
The universe as we observe it
Consistent with itself
Consistent with the evidence
Includes all the evidence
Adds up to reality as we know it

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 06-26-2007 2:02 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 06-27-2007 10:00 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 90 (407742)
06-28-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by simple
06-27-2007 10:00 PM


Still caught in contradictions.
I never said instant, that would be you. A day without strawmen for you is like a day without sunshine I guess.
At least pretty darn fast, getting here in creation week.

First off, a strawman is defined as a misrepresentation of a position -- to have a strawman of your position you would first have to have a position to misrepresent: you don't. Your only "position" is that "something" was "different" -- the ultimate invisible moving goalpost. All I'm doing is narrowing down the possibilities.

We now have two different kinds of light, "spiritual light" (sl) that is "pretty darn fast" (one of those easy to apply scientific quantities, like the color of a chameleon's skin ...), and normal light (nl).

There is also another light in heaven, as we need no light of the sun. Of course we will not be shackled with the deathly limitations of the PO state.
But I suppose we could get some right here in the form of a light from heaven. i.e death experiences. It is not perceptable to the average being however, as we know from observation.
It doesn't affect our light, such as the sun. Now, I have assumed that deep space was the same.
(In the past I have assumed that the former light left our present light, after the split, carrying info still from the former complete state light.)

So they are entirely different kinds of light. Thus we have these possibilities:

(1) sl has no effect on and no interaction with nl. From this it follows that the light from SN1987A traveled 168,000 years to get here and decay observed in the SN1987A light shows decay happened 168,000 years ago. From this it also follows that IF decay occurs only after the "split" that this "split" occurred 168,000 years ago or more. From this it follows that the 14C decay dating of the tree rings is valid. OR

(2) sl interacts or interacted at some time in the past with nl (but no longer does so) and this interaction transfers information from one to the other. Because both are traveling at fixed speeds the time differential between different decay states for cobalt-56 is the same as what we see on earth. From this it follows that that the decay rate on SN1987A was the same as it is on earth, and either decay occurs before the split or decay occurs only after the "split" and that this "split" occurred 168,000 years ago or more. From this it follows that the 14C decay dating of the tree rings is valid.

Seeing as you reject the possibility of decay before the "split" you are left with 168,000 year old light, and valid dating of the tree rings by 14C decay calculation.

I seem to remember for years hearing aboout a big difference in expected neutrinos from our sun getting to earth. Then, they say they maust have changed flavors on the way to explain it. Maybe they tried to tweak the sun's core a bit, to make it fit.

{abe} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Solar_neutrinos

quote:
Starting in 1998, experiments began to show that neutrinos indeed have mass and can change flavors (see Super-Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, KamLAND and MINOS). This resolved the solar neutrino problem: the electron neutrinos produced in the sun had partly changed into other flavors which the experiments could not detect. Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on solar neutrinos.

Detection of solar neutrinos, and detection of neutrinos of the SN 1987A supernova in 1987 marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.

Neutrinos are most often created or detected with a well defined flavour (electron, muon, tau). However, in a phenomenon known as neutrino flavour oscillation, neutrinos are able to oscillate between the three available flavors while they propagate through space.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

quote:
The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics - specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time.

More direct evidence came in 2002 from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada. It detected all types of neutrinos coming from the sun, and was able to distinguish between electron-neutrinos and the other two flavors. After extensive statistical analysis, it was found that about 35% of the arriving solar neutrinos are electron-neutrinos, with the others being muon- or tau-neutrinos. The total number of detected neutrinos agrees quite well with the earlier predictions from nuclear physics, based on the fusion reactions inside the sun.


Problem resolved by new observations. Your information is out of date. {/abe}

One thing about neutrinos that we do know is that we do not know everything about neutrinos. We don't know what mass they have and we don't know if they travel at the speed of light (nl) or whether they travel very near that speed. One thing we do know is that we can detect them. Neutrinos were also detected, observed from SN1987A:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/sn87a.html

quote:
Ten neutrino events were detected in a deep mine neutrino detection facility in Japan which coincided with the observation of Supernova 1987A. They were detected within a time interval of about 15 seconds against a background of lower energy neutrino events. A similar facility, IMB in Ohio detected 8 neutrino events in 6 seconds. These observations were made 18 hours before the first optical sighting of the supernova.

One of the recent pieces of information about neutrino mass came from the neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987A. Ten neutrinos arrived within 15 seconds of each other after traveling 180,000 light years, and they differed by a up to factor of three in energy. This limits the neutrino rest mass energy to less than about 30 eV (Rohlf).

New experimental evidence from the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan represents the strongest evidence to date that the mass of the neutrino is non-zero. Models of atmospheric cosmic ray interactions suggest twice as many muon neutrinos as electron neutrinos, but the measured ratio was only 1.3:1. The interpretation of the data suggested a mass difference between electron and muon neutrinos of 0.03 to 0.1 eV.

The recent neutrino measurements at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory are consistent with the modeled total neutrino flux and add evidence for neutrino oscillation, a process which can only occur if the neutrinos have mass.


This is not light but a different kind of subatomic particle. They are also produced by decay, and they also took 168,000 years (minimum) to get here from SN1987A's location. That the neutrinos were observed before the visible light increase from the super nova was observed also means that the light was not traveling faster than the neutrinos at any time from SN1987A's location to the earth.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : abe

Edited by RAZD, : revised and simplified


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 06-27-2007 10:00 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 06-29-2007 3:32 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 90 (407919)
06-29-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by simple
06-29-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Still caught in contradictions and denial
No, three. The former merged universe light. The present light, and the spiritual light, from the separated spiritual dimension. See, the physical was separated from the physical. So the spiritual has their light, and the forever future state has it's light. To sum up, there is the merged, and there is the physical only, and the spiritual only.

Change the name still the same ball-game. All you've done is exchanged "spiritual light" for "merged light" in the previous examples (typical move the greased pig goal-post type maneuver). We still have these possibilities here:

(1) in the merged light the two types travel as one, their speed - like the previously defined speed of "pretty darn fast" is also well defined - and when they come to the transition zone they are split apart with physical light now traveling at the normal speed of light, c: this is de facto a change in speed of this light, so the conditions of Message 53 on light being slowed down apply (hyper decay in pre-split times, or the light comes from post-split times).

(2) in the merged light the two types still travel at their own speeds either with

(a) no interaction between them (and thus no change in the speed of light and all the information from SN1987A traveling at the normal speed of light, c, takes 168,000 years to get here, either from (i) pre-split times, in which case decay occurred prior to the split, or (ii) post-split times, in which case the universe is at least 168,000 years old), OR

(b) interaction between them with information passed from faster light to normal light (and thus the evidence of decay is also passed at current time intervals, matching decay rates today, and once again you either have (i) pre-split decay occurring at current rates, so current rates of 14C hold for pre-split tree rings as a measure of their true age, or (ii) post-split decay, with 168,000 year old decay in the universe).

Well, your strawman claim that light changed speed was just that. I don't say that. So why raise it up as some argument to fight??

Then you are still stuck with (2)(a) or (2)(b). Still hoist on the same petard of contradiction with your other claims.

No. First of all, I am not yet convinced that the evidence provided means that there was decay. Take away the assumptions, and it seems all we have is a, what was it, 77 day period of a certain light curve. You assume so many things, that this alone needs to be looked at closer. If there was decay for sure, we could still accomadate that in the model. But I don't know that we even have to go there.

What you are convince of is irrelevant: it is what the evidence shows. The light spectrum matches the light spectrum for cobalt-56, and the decay pattern matches the decay rate for cobalt-56. Nothing you have surmised, imagined, or fantasized has yet addressed this issue. Your claims add up to contradiction, denial, fantasy and delusion, while the pattern seen by science is consistent and predictive, based on evidence, evidence from current behavior and evidence from past behavior (SN1987A).

. If I created a star, in a former state, and we looked at it in a time reversed way, where it appeared to be exploding, how could I really read the light properly???

There go those greased-pig goal posts again. When in doubt change your position eh? You are now proposing that the light from the star is flipped in time? LOL.

Besides the 77, or whatever period, where the light spectrum was noticed?? Is there anything else???

As previously mentioned there are the neutrinos, another product of decay, subatomic particles that are not light, have mass and travel at or near the speed of light. Particles that were not passed by the light traveling from SN1987A. To which your cogent rebuttals were:

So??

and

So??

Hard to argue against that. Looks like you just don't understand the neutrino problem.

IF what???? If some neutrinos changed flavors? If.....??? How about if the sun ussed to be merged?? Maybe the self created scenarios they cooked up could be a little off?

Grabbing at straws now? The original "solar problem" was based on the assumption that neutrinos did not have any mass. By the laws of physics this precluded oscillation between flavors of neutrinos. The observation of (one type of) neutrino did not match predicted quantity. Then later experiments showed that neutrinos must have mass. By the laws of physics this means they can oscillate between flavors of neutrinos, and in addition 3 types are then predicted. The detectors were modified to observe all three types and voila all three were observed AND their total matched the predicted quantity. Thus the "solar problem" has been resolved ... this is the way science works, by observation and testing and evidence.

All you have:

But if we were to add the split process, the time distortions, and differences between states, what would we see?? You have no idea. So, what really says there was decay. precisely??
Contrawise, if there was no decay, or if that decay was brought to earth on merged light, etc. the carbon decay is also out the window,
In no way are we left with anything of the sort. That would require a same past state. You don't have one.
Man is not God, and we cannot project our prison reality oout to infinity and beyond. Nothing took 168,000 years to do anything. Anywhere. Ever.

Is fantasy, blind assertion, off the cuff comments, contradictions, denial and delusion.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 06-29-2007 3:32 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by simple, posted 06-30-2007 1:39 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 65 of 90 (408065)
06-30-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by simple
06-30-2007 1:39 AM


Your "line in sand drawn" keeps moving ... away from the evidence ...
The only change is in trying to gear it to your understanding. Relax.
This split apart business I think is a misnomer. It would be more like the present light is what was left that could exist in this state. So, the info could be carried still, as it was left in this state universe. Remember, that it was already well on it's way to earth in this scenario, due to the still merged space between here and there.
No. You make it sound like two lights traveling together. It was the former light, but, remember, also in the former state universe and space. It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe. How fast could light even our light, travel in a different state, and space time contiuum???? You have NO idea!!! Therefore you speak from ignorance. You need a same past, you don't have one. That negates your model, as concerning the future or past. Really. No wat around it. No wiggling out of this is possible. All that remains is for you to grow an integrity meter, and accept it.
I think I already more or less hoisted your position up as a belief here anyhow. But if this gets cut off, and you want to make a few points, that would be the best place. If not, fine.
Ah, well that means nothing for your side, really. All we have is an earth based concept of how neutrinos are produced locally. Applying that to the far reaches of the universe is not possible. To do that, we would have to be able to say how neutrinos used to be produced, if at all.
Once we isolate man's realm, and how we grasp at comprehending locally here, how they are produced now, I think the problem goes away real fast.

Just more denial of the evidence, failure to confront reality and inability to deal with the truth. You have presented no evidence for your position, and it wavers like a will-o-the-wisp whenever it suits you.

The evidence from SN1987A shows the formation and decay of cobalt-56, and not one thing you have proposed in your fantasy world explains that evidence.

By the way, I see Nosy appeared on the scene here, so I should post this plan B link, each post with that little dictator around, could be my last under this identity.
http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html

Paranoid? All you need to do is substantiate your position rather than provide fantasy after fantasy: dealing with reality is like that. If you can face reality you can do it here. Even with special dispensation you have not been able to substantiate any of your claims - because you can't: they are fantasy.

But, can you tell us please, right now, what cobalt 56 would not be used in creation of a star?? If so, and it was the creation of a star we were seeing in a time reversed way, as if it was an explosion, why not have some cobalt 56??
Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!!

Cobalt-56 is formed by fusion and then decay of nickel-56. All that is needed to form a star is hydrogen. All other elements can be formed by fusion within the stars. This too is observed in the spectrum of light from the stars.

Or, if we looked at it as the SN1987a area explosion reaching us, due to the split process still merged space between, that could work as well. In that case, we expect that the universe was already PO, so the decay is expected from far away. Either way, the different past explains it every bit as well as your same past myth.
See, even if the separation process lasted only say, 4 days, the 77 day decay and etc can be explained by the rest of the universe being PO that we see the light coming in from now, as well.
Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!!
I could see as a possibility that there was some time reversal in deep space, and we may be watching a part of creation in reverse. But, as I say, either way, the different state past can explain it. (No the time idea didn't just happen on this thread)
I think you are cornered on all fronts here, should admit the box you are found in.

Again you try to move the goalposts with another - entirely different - fantasy. Yet you still fail to address the evidence that shows the decay of cobalt-56. This is not an argument but denial and dodging of the issues. This is not "cornering on all fronts": it totally fails to deal with the front of reality and only presents fantasy after fantasy after fantasy, running away from the contradictions of each fantasy as it is evaluated.

Ah, speaking of grasping at straws now. Yes there are three kinds that we know of. Yes, it seems that they can change flavors. So??? Can you prove that they did change flavors from the sun in the required ratios and amounts???? No. What you do is try and squeeze all things under the PO assumption blanket, and assume that these must have all changed as needed to suit your myth. Right??

Theory predicted the number of neutrinos produced by the sun. Those numbers are observed. It is that simple. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the total number matches the prediction: that is the reality.

It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe.

Funny how Idologists use the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that any small change in any of the basic constants of physics would make the universe either collapse or fall apart, yet here you are doing whole-sale destruction of those constants ... without a clue for what happens as a result.

Changing light isn't enough to explain your fantasy's inability to deal with reality, so now lets include changing the whole universe eh? LOL. This still does not explain the evidence of the cobalt-56 formation and decay, the neutrinos observed from SN1987A and the reality of the world around you.

Stop running from the evidence and face it.

I never said I wasn't convinced of that much.

What you are convinced of is irrelevant. Your inability to deal with the evidence and reality is what is relevant.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by simple, posted 06-30-2007 1:39 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by simple, posted 06-30-2007 11:48 PM RAZD has responded

Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014