|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
I saw no comment on my last post showing the support for long age, so see how this goes.
The comparison of C14 age with tree ring age shows a very close relation till about 2000 years ago, then C14 starts to understate the age by up to a few percent. This trend is continued when the comparison is moved to Lake Suigetsu varves. At around 40,000 years ago the C14 date seems to approach the varve age more closely.The more recent investigation of Suigetsu involves some 800 samples sent blinded to two or sometimes three different labs for testing. Seems to be a lot of trouble when you already "know" the result you want. What I find particularly interesting is the detail of the curve plotting C14 age against ring and varve count. First there is that deviation from exact parallel I mentioned. Also there are reported to be plateaus in the curve where the C14 age does not vary much, especially about 11000 years ago but also other shorter ones. This would be due to variation in the rate of C14 production or the release of old C into the atmosphere. So, Faith, what is going on here? Are the researchers reporting real findings and C14 can be reliable to 40,000 years plus? Are they just making it all up and reporting these variations from a straight line concurrence to make it look good? Did the Flood lay down tens of thousands of layers in Lake Suigetsu while C14 decay was altering?These are the sort of questions that terminated RAZD's debate with mindspawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Woodmorappe in an article on age issues mentioned that there can be variation in the production of C14 to confuse results, referencing a Science article that clearly showed how tree rings and varves allow the correction, a matter which he of course ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Woodmorappe in an article on age issues mentioned that there can be variation in the production of C14 to confuse results, referencing a Science article that clearly showed how tree rings and varves allow the correction, a matter which he of course ignored. Creation "science" at work. "Woodmorappe" (the pen name of Jan Peczkis, a grade school teacher) is not exactly the most authoritative commentator on matters of science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've pretty much proved the Flood on this thread already, why are you nagging me about irrelevant side issues? Acknowledge the reasonableness of the Flood as the best explanation for the actual evidence presented. I don't owe you an answer to anything until you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1310 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
I've pretty much proved the Flood on this thread already You are completely deluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Reported results that completely refute the Flood are hardly irrelevant side-issues. How did the Flood lay down 40,000 plus neat couplets of diatoms and clay, with C14 date increasing with depth? And you still have to fit in the vulcanism and tens of thousands of ice layers.
So much to do, so little time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Woodmorappe did acknowledge that the tree-ring count out into the 8,000s was solid. He was trying to find a way to collapse into 4000 years. He needs luck!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1310 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Grand Canyon 'formed recently' - BBC News
The world famous Grand Canyon, which snakes through the American state of Arizona, only took its present form relatively recently.
New research suggests that most of it was put in place just five to six million years ago. Earlier studies had claimed the canyon was perhaps 70 million years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
WTF is "Uncommonly emphasizing the positive"? You misread. The word was "unconsciously" not "uncommonly." I mis-read. Sorry. WTF is "unconsciously emphasizing the positive" There was nothing positive in your message.
And since Coyote's posts were what provoked my comment about how we never hear about the false readings of radiometric dating methods, it's not only relevant it's the whole point. n And you still cannot admit your error. I acknowledged mine. There's lots of discussion about false readings of radiometric dating. Your claim was wrong. Maybe Coyote writes of false readings, maybe he doesn't. Irrelevant. Maybe Coyote inspired your comment. Irrelevant. Your claim was "False readings are never reported, it's always made to seem absolutely perfect even though you know it isn't". That doesn't refer to an individual, it refers to a group, and is libeling that group. You owe that group an apology because your UABF was wrong as usual And your other UABF, "And when I said it's withheld from creationists I meant in discussions like these. ", has been proven conclusively wrong. Will you admit your error or will you continue to insist you are globally infallible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
And what you are doing is reciting a portion of that very misunderstood Creed I was talking about, the part about how science isn't really about proof, which denies that REAL HARD science DOES have proof which OE and ToE do not. How tedious and stupid coyote. You are the one who learns nothing. Oh for your god's sake, try and learn something and use the brain that nature imbued you with. With the possible exception of pure mathematics NOTHING can ever be proved - I challenge you to try with anything you wish outside of pure mathematics. Every advance we have made as a species using our science has been with the understanding of 'best fit' theories against the real hard evidence. That has led us to increase longevity from 24 to 83 years (male UK figures) over the past 1000 years, land on the moon (you're not a we-didn’t-land- on-the-moon conspiracist are you?) send probes to asteroids, planetary satellites and even spacecraft out of the solar system all together. It's allowed us to wipe out diseases such as small pox and to lessen other killer diseases. It's allowed us to feed 7 billion and to colonise every niche on the planet and to have mastery over all other species. Science and the human mind have done all this from the Scientific method that you decry so willingly. The ‘science creed’ you love to decry has shaped every bit of your comfortable life. Religion has done nothing for us as a species - indeed a greater foment of wars would be hard to find. In ancient Greece and Rome we had architecture, roads, spas, philosophy and fledgling science. After Christianity came along Middle-ages Britain (for example) in the 1300's had plague, faeces tossed out of windows, heresy, witches being burnt, scientists persecuted and put to death.....who knows how many great minds were lost in those barbaric superstitious times!! Back to the topic....here's a challenge for you: You say we can't be sure of the long distant past ....so here's a statement for you: We know with absolute certainty that the early Earth atmosphere could not possibly have contained more than a trace of oxygen (so no humans or any other oxygen breathing animals could possibly have survived then). How do we know this since we weren’t there? How are we so certain we are right? Hint: Very basic chemistry.....if you can't figure it out you need to go back to school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Cute quote-mine, Faith. The "was" in your second quote gives it away. The author is describing some ways in which geology is misunderstood, and goes on to correct those misunderstandings.
quote: Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Faith,
The style of approach taken by that article (Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science) is the one that goes, "I have such good answers for these objections that I shall raise them myself." You're quoting from the part that characterizes the objections, not from the article's answers or conclusions. Also, you seem to have misinterpreted the first quote. The author doesn't use the word "derivative" in the sense of "not genuine". The article is about geological reasoning, and as he explains, he uses the term "derivative" in the sense that the reasoning used in geology derives from physics. He goes on to argue that in addition to those of physics geology has its own set of reasoning operations. The article doesn't at all support your claim that "you can't verify anything from the prehistoric past." There's a whole section on geology as a historical science beginning on page 964. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I've pretty much proved the Flood on this thread already... You are totally delusional. All you've convinced anyone of is your ignorance, inability to reason, lack of visualization skills, lack of math skills, lack of interest in evidence disproving your ideas, lack of introspection, emphasis on Biblical interpretations at the expense of reality, and reliance on primitive rhetorical techniques (name calling, declarations of victory, ignoring arguments, etc.) in place of arguments from evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Whether the rocks were lithified or not is irrelevant. Run away! Run away! The state of the layers at step 7 is key. You wrote of step 7:
Here we're getting successive layers exposed and then eroded through as the water starts to take on the form of a river running in one direction, at first very wide and deep. It will form meanders on the surface of one of the exposed layers and will cut down through successive layers fairly rapidly as the water as a whole is draining away and the river's volume decreases As its volume decreases it cuts less widely into the land areas making the shelf like tiers of layers until it cuts down to the current level of the river. It started the meander shape at a higher level but cut down through the recently laid layers quite rapidly, wider river at the upper levels, narrower as it descends. Remember, meanders are formed by slow flow, and they are approximately the same width as the river. If the walls were not well along in lithification, the walls would collapse. If the walls were lithified or well along in the process, you don't have anywhere near enough time for the GC to form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Definitely if there was enough of a barrier introduced, such as a boulder that nearly blocks the stream, water would back up. I have been thinking about the physics behind that and I think it has to do with the resistance of the barrier. You have to think in terms of equilibrium energy states. The river before the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations and the river after the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations once the flow has once again reached an equilibrium in the energy distribution. If I introduce any size obstruction at section 2 in the upper graph then the value of Hf1-2 is increased and the surface level will be higher. The actual amount may be unnoticeable but it is still there. At some point upstream of the obstruction and at some point below the obstruction the energy flow states will be unchanged (as long as the obstruction doesn't entirely block the flow). The only question is how far apart this is and how much the levels in between are affected.
There is no indication at the surface of what is going on under the surface, but there is undoubtedly shallow areas where the river runs fast and deep areas where the water slows down (ie. runs and pools). Certainly there are plenty of rocks on the bottom that act as barriers, yet the surface level is flat, not backed up. It doesn't appear backed up because it has reached equilibrium and this backup causes increased flow to the right of the log and to the right of the island while still remaining in the laminar flow (another issue not discussed yet) in these sections (versus turbulent flow at the log). Laminar flow and turbulent flow have different friction gradients with depth.
... the water level will back up until it can provide the additional energy to keep up with the resistance. I haven't figured out how to model that idea mathematically though. That will take some more thought. It's called fluid dynamics, equations way beyond Faiths capacity or willingness. Note the discussion of viscous flow and that the viscosity of the liquid affects the behavior. Thus mud flow differs from pure water, but both can be mathematically modeled. Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024