|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
coyote writes: 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?
There is no evidence for a global flood at 70 mya or any other time. The global flood is a religious myth.
The original date claimed was ca. 4,350 years ago but when the evidence showed there was no flood at that time claims were made for other times, all the way back to 70 mya and beyond. There is solid evidence that there was no global flood at any time. Same thing. Imaginary so called science years never existed in reality. So 70 million imaginary years has no real currency. You see, the only dating methods that exist all involve our laws and nature. The imaginary years claimed are only as god as the belief they rest on.
And the ways they try and discount inconvenient dates from the past are particularly amusing, with magic vapor canopies and wildly fluctuation decay rates and all the rest. Trying to make the same mistake science makes in learning of the past is what they are doing. They are grasping at alternate scenarios but using the same laws. They could never construct such expensive and elaborate models based on that premise as godless science can.
So, you don't like radiocarbon (C14) dating, eh? How about coming up with some evidence for a change as to why it doesn't work.
Easy. It only works in this nature and as long as our forces and laws have existed. How long that is is not known.
By the way, I have done 707 radiocarbon dates, and have four more out and being processed currently, so I know a bit about the method. So how about you prove that any radioactive decay at all existed long long ago?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: ..... 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. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: We start with tree rings because trees grow rings in a consistent pattern, .. 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. You post was long, maybe I'll look at the rest later...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
edge writes: Tell us more about this 'former nature'. When did it happen and what was it like back then? Why did it change to the present nature? Science doesn't know what it was like. This is a science forum. One needs to do more than believe it was the same and call that science, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: Flood waters would cover it all, no? How would finding some in what is now desert help you?
(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.
(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. If evidence of the flood is asked for, and one points to some materials in layers at a certain area of the geologic column, that is off topic? Then why ask? Also, you responded to the same issue, why go off topic then?
... which is another fail.
Please address the topic without rambling nonsense. All your supposed correlations are from the same belief. Address that!
The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age. Already answered, because your correlations all correlate from one belief!
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. No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications.
To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why.
Done. The error is that is is 100% belief based. Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all. Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
If you can prove your same state nature in the past do it now of forever hold your peace! Or, if you can prove time in the far universe exists the same as here, do it!
Name any 'analysis' in this thread that is not based on that belief? Yes it is a serious misrepresentation of supposed knowledge or any real science to pretend you know when you fail to be able to put up the goods. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
phat writes:
I propose they offer their beliefs as the anti bible religion they are, rather than some con job pretense of being known, or real science!
What do you propose? alternative science? One of your points which you wish to emphasize is that science is a belief. Do you see the counter-argument? In order to be a good debater, it is always helpful to see the reasoning that your opponent uses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You want pictures, read the thread. So rather than post a pic of tree rings post 5000 years old from a living or once living tree with rings that span that time, you say they are hiding in the thread somewhere!? Ha. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: So now we see you actually do not have what you alluded to. OK. No news here. No, I am simply saying that IF you actually read the thread you would find the evidence. If this is hiding, then it is hiding it in plain sight for anyone/everyone to see. This is why other readers will see your argument fails -- they can read the threads and see the evidence. But you -- obviously -- have not read the thread, and more to the point have no intention of doing so, for that would mean confronting the actual evidence. This is the WORST argument creationist make. Instead of confronting the evidence they avoid it with simpleton comments like this. Ha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
The proof is in the pudding. The models of creation science has offered are against the record God offered. Time to face the fact that different spirits are behind both.
As for the 'oh, science gave us gidgets' nonsense, face the fact that all that science deals with or 'gives' us is here and now. Nothing to do with creation or origins. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
jar writes: All of the evidence shows that God had absolutely nothing to do with the content of Bible stories unless God is an ignorant liar. Ignorance is behind the Biblical accounts, that's for sure; but ignorance can be cured and many today are far less ignorant than the authors of the Bible stories. Unfortunately that is not true for Creationists, the remain willfully ignorant. Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy. You allude to evidence we do not see posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: From post 735. .. "The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact.." The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: Not if you expect some undisturbed uniform recent layer or something. The actual flood was probably before mountain building and drift, and a lot of things that disturbed the bejinkins out of the earth. The flood was not some act of nature, but of a Scientist, who planned it all with precision.
You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.
Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago. The question remains...so what?? You think there was none of that pre flood?
The correlations are evidence from the real world.
Only if we limit the meaning of real to the present nature world. The correlations are all based on one belief. Nothing else. Therefore any internal agreement (however forced) is of no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the belief they all rest upon.
You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim? Having the correlations based on one belief is of utmost meaning. That means you must forget the smoke and get to the fire.
Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that. Well, easy to demonstrate that I have indeed done that. Name any one of the correlations that does not sit solely and exclusively on the same nature in the past belief!!? Unless you can, I claim total victory.
Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence? Will you ever post any evidence that is not smeared and drowned and painted with your big belief? You see, molesting evidences with beliefs is not presenting evidence, it is denying that you are using beliefs.
So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion? There is no need to figure it out God already told us. All I ask is that fake news so called origins sciences stop pretending that they have anything but beliefs. They could never figure it out. Impossible. They are shooting blanks. They are playing with a deck of 2 cards! Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: Curiously, this thread is about religion, and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way. The time for denial is over. Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion. You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past? Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you. Corals? No. Similar reasons to above. Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is? In all cases, you appeal to belief. Period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day, have yet to show any mechanism to cause this perfect 3-way correlation without it being due to the reality that time flux is not a tenable position for anyone but the most deluded creationist. Note that you need a system for creating the marine varves that operates faster than particles are known to settle -- and at the same time sort between foraminifera and clay -- in water ... because of their respective settling rates ... in microseconds. I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered. Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day? Explain?
that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass Impact force from either direct would fuse glass. Walt Brown envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall. So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. You see I have many options. But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above? I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024