Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?
Calling science and objective empirical evidence fables doesn't make it so, rather it exposes a petulant desperate ignorance on the part of the poster -- he must make science seem like his vapid religious beliefs or else his world crumbles.
Unfortunately -- for him -- reality is unaffected by his absurd fantasy, and we can only call it fantasy as there is no support anywhere else (it's only in his mind).
In this fantasy world pink unicorns exist and they poop pure gold. He can't show this is not so.
In this fantasy world pigs fly, as Ringo mentioned, and their droppings are manna. He can't show that this is not so.
In this fantasy world the earth is the center of the solar system and the solar system is the center of the universe. He cannot show that even this is not so.
etc
etc
etc
Because the problem when you retreat into a fantasy world to maintain beliefs that are falsified in the real world/universe nothing in known, everything is illusion ... even existence.
Including those beliefs you thought you were protecting -- without support you have nothing.
Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?
Neutrinos interacting with detectors deep in underground caverns make more of a ripple than silly fantasy beliefs.
So sorry, no. Nothing you have said rises to any kind of challenge to science.
If we were interested in evaluating your abilities and knowledge ...
... but we aren't.
We just use you as a tool to explain science to the other readers of these threads and to show by example how much more complete and integrated and interactive science is compared to creationism in general and starman fantasy delusions in particular.
So thank you for the opportunities you provide to expose the empty pathetic claims so that we can teach people the pitfalls of such delusions while science offers a consistent view of the world.
For example, you claim your imaginary flood occurred at the KT boundary, which means that your fantasy before time has to extend passed this boundary ... when does it end? Yesterday? You can't show it doesn't.
Because this event is marked by an iridium layer around the world, marking a unique and very distinctive point in time even with relative dating, and this means all the counting layers of dendrochronology, varves, ice and calcite, etc. ... ALL occurred AFTER this point in time.
And it means you throw away the usual creationist nonsense of things being different before the imaginary flood, ... and thus you have NO mechanism to explain how it transitions from "before" time to present time.
You are in an axe fight without an axe, and behave just like Monty Python's Black Knight ...
Entertaining at first, but then it gets boring from the repetition with no additional value.
Fails 38, 39 and 40 ... consistent failure: good cause for suspensions.
To anyone having some actual point of discussion or debate....I will check my blog.
I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.
end transmission
The old claim victory and run away from the overwhelming evidence that your assertions have no value. The inevitable result of having such a poor argument that you have no evidence to support it and are reduced to just repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Meltdown fail #38 ...
Message 667: False, you have no idea what rings grown fast in the forner nature would or should look like! Your attempted point is that if the nature was the same, THEN fast grown rings would look a certain way.
... and now you are reduced to claiming that every bit of evidence in the "forner (sic) nature" looks just exactly like what occurs today, and that it is indistinguishable from evidence occurring in the "present nature" ... or to be more specific, the distinction is useless, pointless, irrelevant, and unimportant in any way shape or form.
FAIL #39.
You guys are not here to debate but to preach
Says the poster with the fantasy religious beliefs who has done nothing else but preach his fantasy.
No, we are here to [i]educate[i] people (not you, you're impervious), the difference is that you can look at the evidence and follow the logic of evidence based arguments to reach consistent conclusions. Science is repeatable, even starting from scratch.
Message 670: I see something about a short lived isotope within rocks. Is your attempted point that there had to be decay because something was in a rock? Be clear. You see, when forces and laws come into being, atoms obey those forces wherever they are, I would think. If our present nature came to exist after the stuff was in a rock, explain why the new forces would not act on on that stuff anyhow?
So you glanced at, but did not read, and even your quickie comprehension is lacking. You have confused Polonium with Uranium. Uranium is not a "short lived" isotope by any stretch of imagination:
... The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years, making them useful in dating the age of the Earth.
So you just claimed that millions and billions of years is a short lived period, because apparently you didn't read beyond the first paragraph. ROFLOL. That's what happens when you don't read for comprehension, just for troll points. That is not debating in good faith, heck it isn't even debating. What a joke.
Further you just claimed that the halos being in the rocks is explained by them happening in the "present nature" ... which make that several hundred million years, and your claims of a "before" time become even more irrelevant and ludicrous.
But there is a lot more involved than just this aspect of the uranium halos. Your failure to get beyond the first paragraph means you didn't even get to the juicy parts.
FAIL #40
I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.
Make it forever, you won't be missed. You add nothing.
Alas, for many people, science is still working as their Brainwashing Machine. Reading the typical stuff they are saying, it's clear that their main presupposition is quite obsolete one - namely, that the physical reality works as an independent mechanism. This old paradigm has been completely disproved but still somehow remains in the "mainstream", especially outside the modern physics.
And I notice that once again you fail to even attempt dealing with the thread.
Please show how "This old paradigm has been completely disproved ... " because inquiring minds want to know.
So you prefer to believe in a lying god/s that create hoaxes and false narratives.
Something that I consider totally pointless, so totally pointless that you run away from any point on which to base your view of reality. What you believe in becomes a world of illusion and make believe, where anything - repeat ANYTHING - is of equal importance: none.
You have no test for reality
This world of delusion is what you create to keep from admitting that evidence as simple as tree rings exists.
Now sadly, for you, these threads are science threads, they do not deal with make-believe, but facts, objective empirical facts.
So either pony up -- starting with your proof -- or admit that you have no scientific argument against the evidence detailed in these threads showing that the earth is old.
Belief is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence. Make believe is not evidence. Tree rings are evidence.
I've inserted comments that you are replying to, so you can see how this helps communication.
Another silly absurd assertion. You have NO evidence that there was a former nature -- it's fantasy.
Nor do you have evidence there was not a former nature. Either one. So that doesn't help you.
Actually we do have evidence in the consilience of all the age measuring systems consistently agreeing one with the other, with no anomalies, year after year, decade after decade, millennia after millennia.
But more to the point, this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies.
One of these is that we don't base science on fantasy or imagination. We have facts, data, objective empirical evidence, and we have theories derived from the evidence to explain the evidence. The better the theory explains the evidence the more applicable it is. To apply theory we make predictions and then test them. Then more predictions are made. This is called the scientific method, a constant feed-back loop mechanism to test and expand our knowledge:
As long as a theory provides usable predictions (ones that come true) we continue to use it, each positive prediction providing further validation of the value of the theory.
When a theory provides unusable predictions (ones that are false) we stop using it, either modifying the theory to accommodate the new information or developing a new theory to explain all the evidence (including the new evidence).
In this way we move from Aristotle's concept of gravity, to Newton's Law of Gravity, to Einstein's Relativity, in each case providing better explanations for the observed behaviors of objects in gravity fields.
Nor do you have evidence there was not a former nature. Either one. So that doesn't help you.
And I ask you, as I asked starman, what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past, and what is reaching us from the stars (Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)).
Without evidence you do not have a theory to test, just imagination and fantasy. Without evidence there is no reason to consider imagination and fantasy as an information gathering system equal to what science discovers and demonstrates.
When there is neither evidence for nor evidence against, then we can simply ignore such concepts until such time as there is evidence ... and a that point start a scientific investigation.
As for your pics, can you tell us how old the tree was and where the pics were in the life of the tree? Ha. You seem to be making the point that in THIS nature, a tree ring sequence will be a certain way. Irrelevant to your discussion of some different nature in the past.
... Irrelevant to your discussion of some different nature in the past.
If you want me to take your arguments seriously, then I expect you to take my arguments seriously, to read for understanding and to ask questions where you have problems with the information.
And I expect you to provide some rational evidence based foundation for your argument, rather than just pot-shots.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
Actually, in Oklo there are supposed to have been a chain of decays. Depending on the half lives, and when the reactions are thought to have happened, some isotopes would no longer be expected to be there because they would have decayed away. For example, if something was supposedly decaying for a few billion years, and something, say, had a half life of 50,000 years, when we look at what is there now, we would not expect to see the isotopes with the 50,000 year half life...would we? So, it would now be missing.
True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because
short half-life isotopes have all decayed to the next isotope in the decay chain, a fact that would not occur with a young earth, and they leave evidence of their existence in the existence of those products,
the products of the decay of those short half-life isotopes a just exactly the same products as we observe today, and they are in just exactly the same proportions to the other elements as we observe today.
True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because
short half-life isotopes have all decayed to the next isotope in the decay chain, a fact that would not occur with a young earth, and they leave evidence of their existence in the existence of those products,
the products of the decay of those short half-life isotopes a just exactly the same products as we observe today, and they are in just exactly the same proportions to the other elements as we observe today.
So prove that the next isotopes in the chain cam from decay?
Corrected to show list in original post. If you copy from the "Message you're replying to" in "Peek Mode" then you can also copy the coding.
Isotopes do not naturally occur is pure concentrations, they only occur in pure concentrations through decay.
quote:The three naturally-occurring actinide alpha decay chains given belowthorium, uranium/radium (from U-238), and actinium (from U-235)each ends with its own specific lead isotope (Pb-208, Pb-206, and Pb-207 respectively). All these isotopes are stable and are also present in nature as primordial nuclides, but their excess amounts in comparison with lead-204 (which has only a primordial origin) can be used in the technique of uranium-lead dating to date rocks.
The 4n chain of Th-232 is commonly called the "thorium series" or "thorium cascade". Beginning with naturally occurring thorium-232, this series includes the following elements: actinium, bismuth, lead, polonium, radium, radon and thallium. All are present, at least transiently, in any natural thorium-containing sample, whether metal, compound, or mineral. The series terminates with lead-208.
The 4n + 1 chain of Np-237 is commonly called the "neptunium series" or "neptunium cascade". In this series, while traces of natural neptunium are still continually being produced in minute quantities in uranium ores, only two of the isotopes involved are still commonly found naturally, namely the final two: bismuth-209 and thallium-205. ...
The 4n+2 chain of U-238 is called the "uranium series" or "radium series". Beginning with naturally occurring uranium-238, this series includes the following elements: astatine, bismuth, lead, polonium, protactinium, radium, radon, thallium, and thorium. All are present, at least transiently, in any natural uranium-containing sample, whether metal, compound, or mineral. The series terminates with lead-206.
The 4n+3 chain of uranium-235 is commonly called the "actinium series" or "plutonium cascade". Beginning with the naturally-occurring isotope U-235, this decay series includes the following elements: actinium, astatine, bismuth, francium, lead, polonium, protactinium, radium, radon, thallium, and thorium. All are present, at least transiently, in any sample containing uranium-235, whether metal, compound, ore, or mineral. This series terminates with the stable isotope lead-207.
The last one was what tipped off the discovery of the Oklo reactors.
You are forgetting the / to close the quotes (should be [/qs] to close) ... I've fixed them here
razd writes:
When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are?
No. You do not.
That was Phat replying to you in Message 685, which you already answered with a dodge.
razd writes:
this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies
Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh?
This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics
razd writes:
As long as a theory provides usable predictions
Guess the same is true of the bible? ...
There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.
... It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either.
Again, this is not a bible study thread, but a science thread. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks predictions in the bible are tested is immaterial to this thread.
razd writes:
what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past..
History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. ...
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.
... Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates?
Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical. Looks like you need to pay more attention, rather than trolling for it.
... Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth?
And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.
Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed
Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.
razd writes:
If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology..
That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing.
But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.
Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.
Until then you have squat and all you are doing is trolling. Just like starman did.
Sadly, for you, all your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.
Pure concentrations? Where in the article does it mention that? What exactly is a pure concentration?
This, readers, is why creationists make such poor debaters: they are stunningly ignorant of the topics that they pretend to be able to talk about. They think their opinions are equal to scientific results.
... What exactly is a pure concentration?
We don't even need pure concentrations to identify the products of radioactive decay.
A pure -- or purer -- concentration is when one isotope is disproportionately represented, rather than all the ones that occur in nature in the proportions they naturally occur in.
Isotopes cannot be separated chemically - there are no reactions that depend on isotope value ...
Thus if you have disproportionately high levels of Lead-206 or Lead-207 you know that they are (end) products of decay.
quote:Lead (82Pb) has four stable isotopes: 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, 208Pb. Lead-204 is entirely a primordial nuclide and is not a radiogenic nuclide. The three isotopes lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 represent the ends of three decay chains: the uranium series (or radium series), the actinium series, and the thorium series, respectively. These series represent the decay chain products of long-lived primordial U-238, U-235, and Th-232, respectively. However, each of them also occurs, to some extent, as primordial isotopes that were made in supernovae, rather than radiogenically as daughter products. The fixed ratio of lead-204 to the primordial amounts of the other lead isotopes may be used as the baseline to estimate the extra amounts of radiogenic lead present in rocks as a result of decay from uranium and thorium.
As noted in Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? the lead at the center of uranium halos only comes from decay of uranium: pure isotopes, no Lead-204. The proportions of the other decay isotopes and elements can be determined from the densities of the rings formed. They all fit a consistent pattern of decay chain production.
... Where in the article does it mention that? ...
Where they talk about the discovery of the reactors. That was the clue to finding them.
Perhaps if you actually read the messages, and actually investigated the issues you might be able to put together a better argument.
This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics
This thread is not about you tossing out the word science and have it embrace whatever you like either.
This thread is about age counting systems. Everything you say that doesn't address that is off topic and an attempt by you to avoid the issues. You can be reported for not debating in good faith.
razd writes:
There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.
Testable predictions I think was what was being discussed, not theories. Keep up. Since you claim predictions, post them. Remember, a prediction is not a circular argument designed to fit the evidence you beliefs.
No the subject was science which develops theories from objective evidence and then makes predictions that test the theories. The thread is about counting systems to measure age. The prediction is that all these systems will come to the same results where they overlap, because each of the different systems is based on scientific evidence of age.
razd writes:
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.
False. That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.
Still irrelevant. You have not shown in any way that the dates are incorrect. Instead you have pre-assumed it and then used imagination to justify your assumption. You talk about circular reasoning, but all you have is circular reasoning -- you have no evidence, you have no theory, you have no argument. Your only use on this thread is to show what an ignorant desperate creationist argument looks like compared to one based on science.
razd writes:
Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical
Hold on...what exactly is geographical that you claim here??
Except that, again, I did not claim geographical -- you did, and just did it again. Are you so ignorant you don't know the difference between geological and geographical? Really? I would laugh if it weren't so sad.
razd writes:
And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.
Sorry, no way. You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.
And amusingly, not only is 70,000 years not part of any known, documented YEC dogma (you are out on a limb here all on your own), but that is still invalidated by the objective empirical data documented in this thread. Try reading the thread and responding to the issues there.
... For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. ...
Your argument is just bald assertion, your (worthless) opinion, and not based on any evidence. Opinion has time and again proven totally incapable of altering reality. The only person you convince with opinion is yourself.
Your opinion is worth less than all the ant frass in Antarctica, because it is not objective empirical evidence, it is not fact; what you have is delusion.
razd writes:
Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.
You have yet to establish that science works at all outside the fishbowl of this present nature. Your comments ooze self righteous dark religion.
There has been no contradictory evidence to it working. There is the evidence from multiple sources coming to the same conclusion time and again that provides evidence that it is working. If you read -- and understood -- the thread you would know this.
razd writes:
But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.
And you pretend that somewhere hiding in a desert of belifs that you post as if they were science ,there is some weighty proof or support for. So far it doesn't look like there is anything but smoke and no fire.
Says the person who has not read the thread and not shown that a single element of it is in error or is not supported by objective empirical evidence.
This is the worst tactic a creationist can take to win an argument -- avoiding the arguments in the thread and just post a lot of trash and delusional belief, hoping to destroy knowledge to somehow make his delusion a winner ... when they also destroy the basis for any belief. To make science imaginary, you make everything imaginary, including the chair you sit on. There is no reason to believe you with science and there is no reason to believe you without science. And, as soon as you accept the chair as real, you accept science as real.
razd writes:
Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiating evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.
Your posts on any thread are not as deep or mystical or important as you thought apparently. In posts to me you offered preciesly zero! Allusions to some great posts you made. Get serious.
And so we still have avoidance of dealing with the issues on this thread. Your still trying to disrupt this thread with irrelevant blather, rather than reading the posts and dealing with the evidence.
This is how you fail, just as every other creationist has failed. This is a losing argument, every time.
razd writes:
..your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.
Some may not be learning what you think! Some may learn that maybe science doesn't really know after all.
Curiously, I'll take that chance, as I have feedback from people who read this thread and renounced their YEC beliefs ... because the evidence convinced them, and because the failure of YEC arguments -- even ones as bizzarre as yours -- failed to convince them ... because they could see the falsehood in the YEC position, the failure to reflect reality.
Certainly there is nothing to be learned from your arguments: all you have posted anywhere is your opinions -- and everyone already has theirs. What convinces people to change opinions is objective empirical evidence.
So provide objective empirical evidence to support your argument or fail.
Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
razd writes:
This thread is about age counting systems.
Great, and so far we see you want to use tree rings as if they were grown in this nature for no apparent reason. ...
We start with tree rings because trees grow rings in a consistent pattern, and we use these specific tree rings because that pattern is an annual pattern with no apparent deviation for some fantasy time warp. Each of the rings has the same beginning and ending characteristics from ring to ring to ring.
We test 4 different tree chronologies one against the other to compare their agreement, and we find highly corresponding values from one chronology with each of the others.
That is reason enough to use them. Until you can show that there is some deviation from this pattern of growth you have no argument. One that consistently affects each of the different chronologies.
You want to counter that there was an imaginary time flux magic that miraculously caused rings to grow hyper fast.
What is the cause for this and what is the evidence that such a cause was present? Why does it perfectly create annual rings? Why are the ring width variations consistent with the ring width variations seen in the historically documented and validated portion of the ring data? Why is there no transition point observable?
You've got a lot of empty holes in your argument. There is no -- repeat NO -- evidence observed that such a thing happened.
Again without evidence you have no theory, and without theory to explain the evidence you have no argument.
Once again, opinion is not evidence or theory. Maintaining belief that is contradicted by facts is delusion.
... as if they also existed in Noah's day. ...
There is no evidence that there is, or ever was, such a thing as "Noah's day" - so that part of your argument is invalid vapid opinion and not in any way based on fact or evidence. Not admissible. Not relevant. Not evidence. Not scientific.
This is a science thread not a spurious religious fantasy discussion thread -- you need evidence to support your argument, not just vapid empty opinion.
... . Then you want to use all the laws and forces that cause radioactive decay that we have in this present nature ...
The point of bringing 14C decay into the argument is that it shows consistent dating back to the time of the pyramids, validating the tree ring annual ring counts.
Because different isotopes of carbon are not sorted or react differently in chemical or biological processes we can use the 14C levels as a test of the tree rings -- tree rings of the same age will have the same 14C concentrations, and those concentrations will decrease as we go back in time, as measured by the tree rings.
This is a test for tree rings as a measure of age, and one that was passed with flying colors.
We also observe that there is a solar sunspot cycle that affects the production of 14C in the atmosphere, a cycle that we see in the tree ring data that is consistent for the length of the tree ring data. .
This also brings up the point that 14C decays along an exponential curve, while the tree ring numbers make a straight line against age, and that the sunspot cycle is also a consistent straight line against age. And we can use the sunspot cycle as a further test of the 14C data to see that this cycle is consistent.
This is another test of the tree ring data, and one that was also passed with flying colors.
That's a 3-way consilience of results that you have totally failed to explain with your magic time flux fantasy.
This is what is observed in the evidence. It is what the evidence shows.
This means that if both ring growth and 14C levels are affected by some imaginary time flux magic, that you need three different mechanisms to provide these results, one that magically and invisibly changes tree rings from annual rings to having hundreds of rings per day, and at the same time magically and invisibly change the amounts of 14C embedded in the rings, and not just to match the tree ring age levels (exponential), but to match the solar spot cycle effect on the 14C concentrations in the atmosphere (linear).
Your vapid evidence vacant assertions do not begin to accomplish this task.
... It seems apparent to me that such religious claims should come with some scientific evidence?
So, when we bet barraged by belief based reasons why you imagine old ages, it is not off topic to request that you provide actual evidences
Read the thread. Complaining about a lack of evidence when it is provided already in the thread is just lazy denial and avoidance behavior.
Argue against the scientific evidence that is provided with counter evidence and an explanation for the counter evidence.
Otherwise fail. Again.
And you haven't even begun to deal with the lake varves or the ice core data ...
If you can't get out of the starting blocks, you'll never win the race.
But hey, keep demonstrating to other readers how empty and fact free creationist arguments are -- it's the best way of showing people how silly and useless these beliefs are.
How about failing to predict the rings of SN1987a? How about having to go back and computer model after the fact about what sort of star actually exploded, since it could not have been the one they thought was there? How about the predicted black hole not existing from the event? Etc.
This bogus claim was refuted on the SN1987A thread. Not only does it not belong on this thread it does not belong to any thread once is was refuted. They KNEW the rings were there, that's why they were counting the time from seeing the SN to seeing when the rings lit up -- and why they were looking at them.
Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
Nothing all that consitent that you have shown in rings some 5000 years old, is there? Any smaller or bigger, or darker or lighter in the rings,( if you ever could show a good close up pic of the rings..ha) could as easily been caused by the growth conditions in the time it grew in the former nature. You seem to have a superficial, shallow case
So you don't know the meaning of consistent in this application. What a surprise. You want pictures, read the thread.
You post was long, maybe I'll look at the rest later...
Yes, that is the difference between ignorant posts based on fantasy and ones based on scientific evidence.
Perhaps when you have time you can try to present evidence for your fantasy gumbo time.
How about the stuff that comes from deep under the earth and space (iridium) such as the flood waters came from? What else would you like?
(1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert.
This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood.
Creationists tend to cherry pick evidence and fail to look at the details that counter their claims.
Fail. Epic fail.
(2) Also off topic, which is a typical ploy of creationists, because they don't have valid arguments to deal with the topic issues. Notice that creations has not yet addressed a single original post on this thread, but thinks he can bluster through.
... which is another fail.
Please address the topic without rambling nonsense.
The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age.
Sadly, for you, your random blatherings totally fail to address the consistency and correlation issues.
Epic fail again.
In failing you prove my point in Message 1: no creationist has yet provided an argument that explains all the evidence and the correlations. Note that previous versions were also not refuted, and the later versions present more data and more correlations. The first version was posted in March 2004:
... plus the posts on this thread .... (currently 726 posts)
Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations.
To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why. Opinion and evidence vacant assertions do not accomplish this, and that is why this thread has not yet been refuted by a creationist. They don't have the evidence and they don't have the science.
™ Version 4.2
