Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 735 of 1498 (827269)
01-21-2018 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by creation
01-21-2018 2:18 PM


Still no evidence, so still no argument of any value.
razd writes:
(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.
Flood waters would cover it all, no? How would finding some in what is now desert help you?
You said the iridium layer was evidence for the flood. As I noted, that doesn't work, it doesn't explain the evidence.
The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact, covering a wide variety of surface type formations, as the ash and particulates fell from the sky, and they in turn were covered by a number of different surface type formations, due to geological processes, many of which have no relation to flooding (or even water). Those deposits have in turn been covered by newer surface type formations by those same types of geological processes. What is desert now is not necessarily related to what was desert after the iridium deposition.
We also know that the iridium layer was caused by the catastrophic explosion of a meteor hitting the earth near what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, not by flood water, because the iridium came from the meteor, not the earth nor the water.
You could of course look this up, but like most creationists you can't be bothered to do your own fact checking. (heck, most creationists don't really know what facts are).
(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.
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?
Because it is easy to be lured into answering inane comments. For comedy.
You do realize that the only reason I respond to your trolling is to show silent readers who may wonder how good creationist arguments are, that they are vapid empty and delusional, don't you?
I use you as a foil to show how science explains things with evidence and theory and testing, while creationism just makes things up. They can easily judge which arguments are persuasive.
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!
No that's not an answer it is an assertion. It is avoiding making a real answer. Because you have none.
Not belief, evidence. There is no contradicting evidence and therefore no cause to consider one.
You are the one making the claim that things were different, but have yet to post anything more than opinions and assertions. That's why you FAIL and FAIL and FAIL.
BTW -- Glad you, by default, agree that linear systems correlating with exponential systems correlating with astronomic orbits are all consistently end up with the same results.
But that's the biggest problem you face: why should they be so consistent when the are entirely different systems ... why should they ALL be affected in precisely the manner necessary to cause the correlations?
This thread is not so much about the different ways to measure past time, but the correlations and consistencies between the different systems.
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.
Then . Do . So.
That is what you have been asked to do from day 1: substantiate your argument with evidence. ie SHOW YOUR WORK.
If you have anything other than bald assertion, now is the time to show it.
Just claiming it is "mere belief based fabrications" is surprisingly void of evidence to base an argument on. You need evidence to support an explanation (theory) that shows it to be the case.
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. ...
Sadly, for you, that is not sufficient, it is void of evidence, it is void of any explanation for why there should be some magical difference in time that is -- as yet -- undetected, and it is void of any convincing argument based on that missing evidence and that missing explanation.
It's just wasted bandwidth and another example for readers of how poor creationist arguments are when they are put to the test.
It is comedy, not science.
... Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. ...
Except that this fails to explain why there are correlations between entirely different systems.
For instance if you twist magic time to cause thousands of tree rings to grow in one day, then you also need a mechanism to change the 14C content in the air as it is deposited in those rings, with thousands of different concentrations, miraculously the same on opposite sides of the earth (because the dendrochronologies are on opposite sides of the earth) in perfect synchronization.
Here is the correlation between marine varves, tree rings and 14C levels:
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.
... 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?
Sorry, your case is massively insufficient, immature, and facile, it's just assertion and delusional opinion, repeated and repeated and repeated. Repetition does not improve a false argument, it just demonstrates that it is delusional.
The result is that you would be soundly mocked, derided and laughed at, if you tried to tell the scientists that they were wrong just because you said so.
Fail again. Because you have not idea what you are up against ... because you haven't read the thread. Because you have no idea how to do science. Because all you know is belief, ... so that is why you try to pretend science is belief. It isn't. Science is discoverable independent of belief, and there are many instances where different scientists have come to the same conclusion, even from different evidence: Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography came to the same conclusions about evolution as Darwin from entirely different evidence, even though they were contemporaries, and then acquaintances after the fact.
Curiously I know of no belief system that has arisen independently but ending up with the same beliefs.
This is the major difference between science and belief: one can be re-created from scratch, the other can't.
Heck there are even different Christian sects that end up with different beliefs based on the same single source.
So many different sects in every religion.
They keep diverging, not consolidating the way science does based on what the objective empirical evidence shows.
This ends today's example to forum readers of why creationist arguments are no competition for scientific evidence based ones.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : typo

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:18 PM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 736 of 1498 (827270)
01-21-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by dwise1
01-21-2018 3:58 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
The science that they want to have is a cafeteria variety, one in which they can cherry-pick what they want and ignore what they don't like. After all, isn't that how they approach the Bible, cherry-picking out of context what they like while ignoring what they don't like? ...
Indeed. This is how you get evangelicals not just endorsing cheating pedophile serial sexual predator Dumpty Trumpty, but hailing him as a new messiah (vs the antichrist as they labelled Obama).
Because abortion of empty sac conceptions is the single issue of concern ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by dwise1, posted 01-21-2018 3:58 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 737 of 1498 (827271)
01-21-2018 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by creation
01-21-2018 2:52 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
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.
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.
Another reason creationist arguments fail, over and over and over.
Fail
Fail
Fail
creationists fail to confront the evidence of old age.
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:52 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 738 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 741 of 1498 (827306)
01-22-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 738 by creation
01-22-2018 9:53 AM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
There is no point in replying to someone who repeatedly doesn't read what is said.
Notice Message 735 has been ignored, but a one liner is posted, supposedly in reply to Message 737, but ignores the point of that post as well.
Too much reality? Too much Science? Evidence?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:53 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 751 of 1498 (827521)
01-27-2018 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 746 by creation
01-26-2018 4:04 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
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
Curiously this "what if cows could fly" comment still fails to address the actual evidence of this thread and certainly is still no answer to Message 735.
From Message 735:
This thread is not so much about the different ways to measure past time, but the correlations and consistencies between the different systems.
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.
Then . Do . So.
That is what you have been asked to do from day 1: substantiate your argument with evidence. ie SHOW YOUR WORK
I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.
Message 735 also says:
... Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. ...
Except that this fails to explain why there are correlations between entirely different systems.
For instance if you twist magic time to cause thousands of tree rings to grow in one day, then you also need a mechanism to change the 14C content in the air as it is deposited in those rings, with thousands of different concentrations, miraculously the same on opposite sides of the earth (because the dendrochronologies are on opposite sides of the earth) in perfect synchronization.
Here is the correlation between marine varves, tree rings and 14C levels:
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.
... You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.
What has not been addresses is the evidence. Facts. Objective reality. Belief has nothing to do with those.
So I'm not pretending when I say not one piece of evidence on this thread has been addressed by you.
All you have done is post "pie in the sky" comments and ignore/deny the evidence that is there.
Curiously, that sounds like a tacit admission that you have no evidence, no theory and thus no argument, no refutation for the evidence of old age, no refutation for evidence that no world wide flood occurred during times covered by the data.
Your only worth on this thread is to demonstrate again how incapable creationists are at refuting the evidence of reality, the reality that the earth is very, very, very old and that there is not one piece of evidence for a global flood.
The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. ...
Nope. You may be ignorant, but that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass. Again, you could have done research on this, but like most creationists you don't. Because you think belief doesn't need reality.
Again, a teaching moment: you don't even pause to look up what impact craters look like before winging another ad hoc fantasy.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:04 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 752 of 1498 (827524)
01-27-2018 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by creation
01-22-2018 9:58 AM


Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
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.
Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion. The data is agostic and readily available to anyone who wants to investigate it.
From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712
quote:
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
Please define the limits of your "fishbowl" ... is it your brain? the earth? the solar system? the galaxy? the universe?
Where's the line?
How do you know?
How can we tell if you are right?
You have made similar claims about the past ... what is the limit of our knowledge of the past: is it your lifetime? written history? the archeological history of human existence? the paleontological history of life of earth? the age of the earth? the age of the universe?
Where's the line?
How do you know?
How can we tell if you are right?
If you can't answer these questions, then why should we consider your argument worth considering?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time.
These are questions that you continually fail to answer.
Because you have no answer. You have no evidence, you have no hypothesis, you have no argument that is scientific.
All you have is delusion, fantasy and wishful thinking and hand-waving denial of the world around you being very, very, very old. The evidence is in this thread.
If you cannot answer those questions, then no matter how much you bluster and stamp your feet, the evidence remains unrefuted.
As long as the evidence remains unrefuted, and you offer no counter evidence, the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted.
As long as the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted and you offer no alternative conclusion based on the evidence, their validity remains unrefuted.
Neither denial nor fantasy are refutations. Your personal opinion is not able to change reality.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:58 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 756 of 1498 (827548)
01-27-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
Curiously, this thread is about religion ...
Fail. That is a childish ploy to avoid the evidence. Or an admission that you don't know how science operates.
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.
Fail.
That is just an assertion, not evidence based comment: where is your evidence that all trees grew faster? Corals?
Faster growing trees (as in the tropics) don't form annual rings at all. Corals grow daily rings.
Radioactive decay in the past? ...
That is what the evidence shows.
... Prove there was any then as there now is?
Science doesn't prove things, it disproves faulty arguments -- with evidence that shows it is faulty -- but the best it can do is recognize a theory as the best explanation currently available to explain the evidence.
All the evidence from decades of scientific study that attempted to show differences in the past have failed.
You claim otherwise? Then where is your evidence? What, you don't have any? I'm sorry. Fail.
You haven't demonstrated that there is anything in your argument to disprove it is just an assertion, an opinion, a fantasy. Science progresses by disproving hypothesis that are attempting to explain evidence. You don't have evidence, so you can't have a hypothesis based on evidence.
In all cases, you appeal to belief.
Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review. They get the same results.
That is how science works. It's not belief, it is recognizing what the evidence shows. It is building hypothesis to explain the evidence, and then it testing the hypothesis to try and prove it wrong. A tested hypothesis is a theory that is used to make predictions, and those predictions further test the theory. The theory is never "believed" even after passing many tests, rather it is recognized as the best explanation currently available for the evidence.
In all cases* you assert fantasy rather than deal with the evidence.
* - not one of your "cases" actually refers to any of the specific evidence provided in the thread.
Thanks for playing. All you are doing is accomplishing three things:
  • extend the length of attempts by creationists to refute the evidence and the correlations of this thread, and
  • serve once more as a teaching moment for showing others how pathetic creationist arguments can be when faced with the evidence of reality.
  • in the process you make a mockery of creationism. Maybe that is your goal.
Notice how you once again avoid answering these basic questions that should be easy if you had a real argument and not fantasy:
Message 752: From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712
quote:
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
Please define the limits of your "fishbowl" ... is it your brain? the earth? the solar system? the galaxy? the universe?
Where's the line?
How do you know?
How can we tell if you are right?
You have made similar claims about the past ... what is the limit of our knowledge of the past: is it your lifetime? written history? the archeological history of human existence? the paleontological history of life of earth? the age of the earth? the age of the universe?
Where's the line?
How do you know?
How can we tell if you are right?
If you can't answer these questions, then why should we consider your argument worth considering?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time.
These are questions that you continually fail to answer.
If you had answers you might have an argument, but without them you don't have anything but delusional babbling.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 757 of 1498 (827554)
01-27-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Here's the real problem ...
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.
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.
Here's the real problem with your posts:
Curiously, I wish there were some actual substance to them to debate, a proper challenge to the information I have spent considerable time and effort for over 13+ years to investigate, provide and explain, as a challenge to creationists to their fundamental belief in a young earth (or some variation thereof).
This information is agnostic, as is all objective empirical evidence. It just doesn't care what you believe, it is there to be recognized or ignored, but it is not altered in any way by any person's opinion or belief.
Your particular blatherings do not even touch the surface of the evidence. There is nothing in your posts worth more than a cursory comment: it is not based on evidence, it is not based on a hypothesis based on evidence, it is not based of a conclusion of a hypothesis that is not based on evidence. It is smoke trying to hide the evidence (or hide from the evidence).
There is nothing to debate. Smoke is not debate.
So forgive me for expecting more than you are able to deliver, for expecting more from creationists.
Meanwhile the total lack of refutation that disproves a single post or a single correlation continues to add post after post after post that demonstrates the validity of this thread.
Sorry, but that's reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 759 of 1498 (827602)
01-28-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by creation
01-27-2018 2:48 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
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?
YOUR claim was that tree rings formed extra fast in your magical flux time fantasy. To bring the data into the squished timescale means condensing everything older than historical records -- which is kind of difficult when those records extend to 2660 BCE or 4,618 years ago and you want the whole timescale to fit inside 4500 years.
Even allowing the flood date to wiggle out to 4618 years ago means a massive compression of all dates after that -- including the evidence for tree rings, and marine varves.
These are the consequences of your claim that make it untenable.
that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass
Impact force from either direct would fuse glass. ...
Except that one would create a bowl under the downward impact and the other would blow the glass away into the atmosphere.
... Walt Brown ...
Is a charlatan that only fools gullible people.
... made up envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall. ...
And the evidence for this is?
The cause of this was?
Making up stuff is not science, as you should know by now.
... So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. ...
quote:
Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water
Earth Boiled, Steamed and Roasted
Another serious problem with Brown's model is the immense heat that would be generated during the proposed cataclysmic eruptions (Castagnoli, 2009; Morton, 2003), which would have literally boiled the oceans and steamed to death all animals and humans aboard Noah's ark. Appealing to supposed experiments with "supercritical water" (SCW), Brown claims the heat would be insignificant, but the calculations demonstrate that the heat would indeed be more than lethal. Sharp (2005) calculated that the energy released in ejecting just the still-orbiting asteroids is the equivalent to approximately twenty trillion hydrogen bombs. Sharp remarks, "The mind completely boggles how Noah and his family, together with his menagerie of animals and plants could have possibly survived all this in a large wooden boat!"
Just one part of the many problems with his ideas.
... You see I have many options. ...
Yes, you can look at the data honestly or you can pretend it isn't valid and make up stories.
Curiously, when you do science there is one option: follow the evidence.
... But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above?
The bowl of fused glass and other is at the bottom of the crater.
quote:
Identifying impact craters
Non-explosive volcanic craters can usually be distinguished from impact craters by their irregular shape and the association of volcanic flows and other volcanic materials. Impact craters produce melted rocks as well, but usually in smaller volumes with different characteristics.
The distinctive mark of an impact crater is the presence of rock that has undergone shock-metamorphic effects, such as shatter cones, melted rocks, and crystal deformations. The problem is that these materials tend to be deeply buried, at least for simple craters. They tend to be revealed in the uplifted center of a complex crater, however.
Impacts produce distinctive shock-metamorphic effects that allow impact sites to be distinctively identified. Such shock-metamorphic effects can include:
  • A layer of shattered or "brecciated" rock under the floor of the crater. This layer is called a "breccia lens".[17]
  • Shatter cones, which are chevron-shaped impressions in rocks.[18] Such cones are formed most easily in fine-grained rocks.
  • High-temperature rock types, including laminated and welded blocks of sand, spherulites and tektites, or glassy spatters of molten rock. ...
  • Microscopic pressure deformations of minerals.[20] These include fracture patterns in crystals of quartz and feldspar, and formation of high-pressure materials such as diamond, derived from graphite and other carbon compounds, or stishovite and coesite, varieties of shocked quartz.
  • Buried craters, such as the Decorah crater, can be identified through drill coring, aerial electromagnetic resistivity imaging, and airborne gravity gradiometry.[21]

So not just fused glass, but a number of features unique to impact craters.
I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.
Science does not take a fixed stance, it follows the evidence to determine what the evidence shows. when the evidence changes the science changes.
You prefer to play games rather that learn science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:48 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:51 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 764 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 769 of 1498 (827650)
01-29-2018 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 761 by creation
01-28-2018 4:51 PM


And now some questions on past times
No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates.
So I guess you didn't see where a biblical date was confirmed ... oh that's right, you haven't read the thread.
What is the boundary for time into the past -- the "fishbowl" for times past?
How do you know?
How can we tell you are right?
Intelligent people want to know.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:51 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 778 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 1:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 820 of 1498 (841016)
10-07-2018 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by creation
10-02-2018 12:49 PM


Small clarification for you and Percy
quote:
See the Wikipedia article on the Prometheus tree for more details. We can bring as many of those details into this thread as you wish. The tree ring count is currently thought to be 4862, but because of missing rings (apparently not uncommon at that elevation) it is estimated that the Prometheus tree is older than 5000 years.
Ha ha ha. Missing rings. Great.
Pity you didn't take his advice and read the wiki article. The rings that are missing are at the early central core of the tree stump, where they have rotted or been eroded away. Because it is the center that is missing we know the tree was older.
Further, "missing rings" do occur when core samples are used, when the weather is sufficiently severe that growth only occurs on one side of the tree and the core misses that section. This has been verified by several methods -- scientific -- that you would not be interested in learning about (they are detailed at the start of this thread).
Another Bristlecone Pine has been found that was documented by coring to be 5062 years old in 2012, so it would be 5068 years old today.
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia
Well, let;s make it easy can you show a good close up of any rings over 4500 years? Ha.
The ages are normally determined by taking multiple core samples, something you would know if you read anything about dendrochronology instead of wallowing in ignorance. Prometheus is unique in having been cut down. The core samples are usually kept in a lab, where their count tally can be verified. Of course if you are serious, you could contact the forestry service and get permission to make your own core. You won't, though because you are in denial of reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 12:49 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by creation, posted 10-08-2018 9:55 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 833 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 821 of 1498 (841017)
10-07-2018 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 816 by creation
10-05-2018 11:32 PM


And now some questions on sanity
You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 years ago or so, in science years. ...
Based on what?
What's your evidence?
... In actual real years it was 4500.
So a year measured by scientific means is not an actual year. Fascinating delusion.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by creation, posted 10-05-2018 11:32 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by creation, posted 10-08-2018 9:54 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 829 of 1498 (841142)
10-08-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by creation
10-08-2018 9:54 AM


Re: And now some questions on sanity
My guess as to when the flood was is based on many facets of science and the bible and history.
In other words it is made up and could not be reproduced by anyone else (a key element of actual science processes).
Measuring a year in the far past on earth by this current nature is nothing more than a statement of faith.
Except that it is independently reproducible by others and that it cross-references with other systems.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by creation, posted 10-08-2018 9:54 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 830 of 1498 (841148)
10-08-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by creation
10-08-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Small clarification for you and Percy
Missing rings do occur in trees grown in this nature. To assume it was also true in the past nature is nothing more than blind faith in a same state past.
Sadly -- for you -- it can be documented by comparing two independent dendrochronologies. This was done with the Bristlecone pines, and two missing rings were documented.
From EvC Forum: The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)
Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale(3)
quote:
... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values ...
... Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony.
A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronology comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. ...
The time scale used here is the same "extended scale," where 8000 equals 1 BCE, so 8001-5859 = 2142 BCE and 8001 - 5330 = 2671 BCE. The "M" designates the Master chronology above.
Again this thread is about correlations ... and if you actually read it you would have a better idea of the kinds and depth of the evidence that puts your claims to shame.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by creation, posted 10-08-2018 9:55 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:13 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 848 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 9:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 839 of 1498 (841204)
10-09-2018 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 831 by creation
10-09-2018 12:13 AM


Re: Small clarification for you and Percy
All correlations rest on the same baseless belief.
Repeating a previously addressed assertion based on your belief alone, is not a refutation of the evidence presented, or the argument against it, rather it is just stubborn denial by someone who cannot accept facts.
Missing rings cannot be documented past 4500 years. ...
But that would obviously be your magical belief years and not the real actual scientific years:
creation writes:
Message 816 You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 years ago or so, in science years. In actual real years it was 4500.
You just have it backwards. Let me correct that for you:
creation: You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 real actual years ago or so, in science years. In actual real belief years it was 4500.
There, much better, yes?
... You seek to invoke a belief that because today there are missing rings, that this has to apply to an unknown nature also in the past.
Talk about invoking a belief ... this is just more of the fantasy that you (and you alone) have created to avoid the cognitive dissonance caused by the real actual evidence of reality.
Again, with no evidence of this fantasy concoction having any basis in reality, it can safely be ignored by science.
Enjoy
Message 832: No year 5000 years ago is independently producible.
As this would be your belief years and not real actual scientific years, it too is a meaningless statement
Message 833: Today there are missing rings because of rot. Not in the former nature times though. You just believe there must have been for no reason.
And again, as this is based solely on your personal delusion, it is another meaningless assertion.
Enjoy
Message 834 to dwise1: Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually.
Based on 12 lunar months of 30 days each. A calendar that needed frequent correction to match the solar year.
quote:
The Hebrew or Jewish calendar (הַלּוּחַ הָעִבְרִי‬, Ha-Luah ha-Ivri) is a lunisolar calendar used today predominantly for Jewish religious observances. ...
The present Hebrew calendar is the product of evolution, including a Babylonian influence. Until the Tannaitic period (approximately 10—220 CE), the calendar employed a new crescent moon, with an additional month normally added every two or three years to correct for the difference between twelve lunar months and the solar year. The year in which it was added was based on observation of natural agriculture-related events in Israel.[1] Through the Amoraic period (200—500 CE) and into the Geonic period, this system was gradually displaced by the mathematical rules used today. The principles and rules were fully codified by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah in the 12th century. Maimonides' work also replaced counting "years since the destruction of the Temple" with the modern creation-era Anno Mundi.
So again you make a meaningless assertion that doesn't match reality.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : adding responses to other posts

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by creation, posted 10-09-2018 12:13 AM creation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024