|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
NOT FOR THIS THREAD
Go somewhere elseby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also?
The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times. But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc. So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts? You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Your correlation claims are wrong. A bunch of empty blab. Try addressing the core issues here.
If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Your correlation claims are wrong. Bullshit! Explain in detail what is wrong with the math. Refer to your textbook from your statistics class. And while you are at it, you still have not provided any of the Bible verses that in Message 834 you claim show that the year is 360 days long; from my Message 875:
dwise1 writes: In Message 834, you claim:
creation writes: Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually. Prove it! Present the actual verses which say that! Or are you also lying about what the Bible says? If you are telling the truth, then providing that information should be trivially simple. If you are lying, then just admit it. If you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating crap fed to you by some creationist cretin, then admit it and identify that cretin. So far, all your actions have demonstrated that you are just yet another dishonest creationist troll. You are the wicked fruit described in the Matthew 7:20 Test which proves that your religion is a false religion that should be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also? You asked what Ian Shaw used for his chronology to show it was not based of C14 dating. I showed you what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, and it is not C14 based. It does stand on it's own. Your question was answered. An honest person would acknowledge that. You have not shown that his chronology is in error. All you have done is dismiss it -- that is not any refutation of the chronology. Nor does it show he was in error. Fail.
The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times. Curiously, I have not claimed dates, but actual factual measured present day levels of C14 in the tree rings and in the Egyptian artifacts. The FACT that they match shows that the tree rings and the artifacts are from the same time that left the patterns. That is the correlation. Why do they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they are not from the same time when "whatever processes were at work left the patterns" ... that is the question posed by the correlation. It doesn't matter what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, the issue is that it correlates to the tree rings by the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14. You have yet to explain the correlation if either chronology is wrong (why your mocking Shaw's chronology is irrelevant).
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc. That information is in the link provided to the paper on dating those artifacts (a peer reviewed scientific paper). If you want more detail then ask the authors of the paper.
So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts? Again, there are four different tree ring chronologies, two with Bristlecone pines from independent areas, and two with oak trees, one Irish and one German. They all run past 4500 years, and all four correlate for the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 for the counted ring annual ages with over 99% accuracy. These results are also in peer reviewed scientific papers, and if you want further details, then ask the authors of the papers.
You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..? The trees age was measured by coring, and reported in a peer reviewed paper. If you want further details, then ask the authors of the paper. And this whining sideshow is also irrelevant to the issue of the correlation: System A provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system ASystem B provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system B The evidence used in system A is entirely different from the evidence used in system B Nether system uses C14 levels to develop their age measurements Why do they both provide the same C14 measured level N at age X if they are wrong? You have not explained why they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they don't come from the same time period. Why do they correlate if the time measurements are wrong. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc. So let me repeat the data from Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote: So "We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). " ALL the dates correlate with the oak tree ring chronology:
quote: The artifacts are compared to the dendrochronology by matching the measured C14 levels and then comparing the tree ring age to the Egyptian chronology age.
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also? From the same reference:
quote: Note that "the consensus chronology of Shaw" refers to a consensus among Egyptologists on these dates. These are the people in the best position to discuss the sources and accuracy of this chronology. If you want to argue about the dates, they are who you need to talk to. Now I'll just wrap up with the rest of Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote: You still have not begun to address the issue of the correlations. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework. OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date? Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
But claims of a 'previous state' can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.
Okay, how fast should coral have grown in a previous state and how fast did ice layers accumulate? Please document. In detail, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Looking at your pic/graph, I see it lists Hezikiah's tree ring tunnel. Too bad that was very post flood eh? Then the line continues...no details. Ha.
Then you cite correlations going back to 700BC? Try dealing with 3000BC. Get on topic here. Your other pic is funny. You cite other possible matches...wiggle room...so I am sorry, but..GONG! As for artifacts matching C154 patterns, again, sorry, but whatever nature existed right after the flood would have left patterns. We can see you go fuzzy near that point and resort to wiggling and red lines. As I said, you have no other way but decay 'dating'. Then you cite the article and the 4700 years covered supposedly. That happens to be about the time of the flood. Add in the error of 1.9% they cite and we have some 85 years more to play with. Then we add in that the nature hange likely was about 106 years after the flood in the days of Peleg...and we have another 106 years to play with. Being so close to the nature change we must allow a possibility their fine artifacts were manufactured pre nature change! Your so called correlations crumble to dust. Once again we see you have absolutely nothing BUT one belief underpinning ALL your so called correlations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1973 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Sorry about your cancerous attitude problem. I did give links to show the prophetic/Gen/Revelation years as being 360 days.
If you are google challenged I guess I could get them again for you. I do spoon feed religionists when I have time, but usually when they have a reasonable attitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
That was in the "Creation" thread. Your verses showed that a 360-day calendar may have been used. That has nothing to do with the actual length of a year. I did give links to show the prophetic/Gen/Revelation years as being 360 days.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?
You are the one professing a previous state. Can you not support your declaration? If you want to "go with the evidence", where is yours? What was life like back in this previous state?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I don't agree it stands on it's own. ... You can disagree all you want to, you can spit into the wind and claim pigs fly, but it won't change the facts, nor will it explain the correlations. Sadly, for you, your personal opinion is worthless jibber-jabber in a debate against facts. It has also been shown that opinion is remarkably incapable of altering reality.
... The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims. And you have not shown that they are vague or incorrect. Another worthless claim.
Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework. OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date? Oh look, I did yours -- again -- in Message 891, because it was easy.
Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. ... Not really, not when there are 4 dendrochronologies that extend beyond 4500 (years ago) and agree with each other with less than 0.2% error at 8,000 years ago.
... Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links. So I'll just post it again, with more detail from the previous link provided .....
quote: Now the "Schulman's" tree(3) is the one that is 5,067 years old (in 2017), and the link says
quote: Note that (WPN-114) was cut down in 1964 and had rings from that date back to 4,844 years ago, so your tree with a 4,500 year old ring can be seen on this stump:
So the answers to your questions are available with little effort, what it takes is the will to find them. And this irrelevant nit-picking diversion into minutia details that are unimportant to the issue of correlations fails to address the correlations or show that the data is incorrect. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024