|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Your graph descended into red lines near the crucial zone of 4500 years. ... Except that I added those red lines to show all the possible correlations to the C14 levels in the artifacts, and this shows the range of dates applicable to the correlation, as noted in the post:
quote: Color added for emphasis. You should read the context.
I pointed out that the change was close to that time, ... No, you blandly asserted a personal belief that it was, one that you have provide no evidence for or any other support. You cannot claim there was a change without evidence -- that's making up fantasy, not factual argument.
... most likely, so that any C14 would lose it's current meaning. Yes, atoms still did stuff and were in some process in that former nature one assumes. ... There is no evidence of a "former nature" and all you are doing is posting wishful thinking, not a fact based argument.
... Yes, the daughter material and parent materials ... C14 does not occur as a result of decay of a parent material, and the daughter material is not used, rather the level of C14 is compared to the level of total Carbon (isotopes -12, -13, and -14). From Message 4 of this thread:
quote: The C14 reverts to the N14 when it decays, and the levels of N14 are not used in C14 dating methodology (which would be silly due to the amount ov N14 in the atmosphere). So thanks for displaying your ignorance on the process you are then claiming to modify through a "former nature" fantasy. There is no sudden - or even gradual - change in the slope of the curve for the actual measured levels of C14 when graphed against the dendrochronological ages from counting annual rings. Not at 4,500 years, not at any point on the graph.
... (except for what came to exist in this current nature) already existed also, and involved in whatever things they used to be involved with. You look at this nature, and how they are now involved in a decay process, and assume all material we see relates to and was a result of this! Having some carbon around the time of a nature change does not mean that that carbon was involved in a decay situation as it now would be. Blah, blah, blah ... your jibber-jabber is meaningless without documented evidence of a change in nature. There was no change in the evidence from tree rings, so logically there was no change in the "nature" of the world. Just like there is no evidence of a world wide flood at these times -- an event that would have disrupted the samples of wood used in the dendrochronologies because wood floats and long term floods kill trees.
The evidence seems to show decreasing accuracy on your graph as we approach the change time. Nope, what you are looking at is a small section with higher magnification than shown on the curve above. Looking at that curve there is no "decreasing accuracy" in that area.
Your evidence is not valid to show a same nature in any way for that time. Sorry, what it shows is a lack of "different nature" at any time along the above curve that is based on tree ring counts. We can extend that curve with similar annual layer counts of lake varves from Lake Suigetsu in Japan to the limits of usable C14 detection, as noted in Message 5 of this thread:
quote: Still no sudden (or gradual) change in the slope of the curve, and now we have added another correlation to be explained. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You provided zero information on the rings pre 4500 level. You cited claims about them. ... Curiously, most people consider quotes from peer reviewed scientific papers as providing information about the contents of those papers, and that providing links lets you check that the information quoted is correct.
... You previously claimed there would not even be all the rings, because of 'missing rings'. Again with the misunderstanding of the actual message. The Prometheus tree was cut down in 1964 and the earliest ring from that tree was 4,844 years ago, so the tree stump shows 4844 - (2018-1964) = 4,790 annual rings (ie - includes 4,500 years ago), but it doesn't show the complete age of the tree because the central portion had rotted away. That means the tree age given is a minimum age because we do not know how many of those center rings are missing. So only the known age is used. This is only the case in this one →1← tree, while the dendrochronology uses many trees to cross-check and validate the ring counts, and there are four chronologies that come from different areas but agree on ring count ages. This has been explained to you. Focusing on details like this (a) does not invalidate the tree ring age, (b) does not provide any evidence of a different "nature" in the past, and (c) does not explain the correlations. It's just wasted bandwidth.
So when they cite an age, how many actual rings are there? One ring for every year of age, a very simple simple concept, children can understand this.
Remember, that if a tree grew in a few weeks complete with rings, ... There is nothing I need to "remember" about your fantasy and the complete lack of evidence.
... that those rings at the time would represent far different times than what rings today do. Except that the physical characteristics of annual rings do not allow for this. You would need a full cycle of seasons to form a annual ring and you just do not have enough time to do that when you grow the whole tree in a couple weeks. 4500 season cycles in 14 days, 321 per day, 13 per hour. 4.5 minutes per ring with new growth section, mature growth section, and shut-down-for-winter section. Ludicrous. Note that this also means that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere would have to change world wide every 4.5 minutes, which is also ludicrous. There is absolutely no mention of 321 seasons per day in the historical texts. Fantasy meet reality.
The whole issue seems to be over a few hundred rings which we can't get a clear answer from you if they even exist or are missing! Nope, it appears it is just you not comprehending what is provided. Or you are intentionally misrepresenting the information provided. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously, when you cite missing rings, we ask for details as to how many hundreds of ring exactly were missing? I see later in this post you clear that up. Now the issue is for you to focus in on the 2 or 300 rings that do exceed the 4500 level. Nope, the issue is for you to explain the correlations of the tree rings and the Egyptian artifacts having the same C14 levels for their independent chronological dates. You keep looking for rabbit holes, this is not one that needs to be followed, because there are 4 (count them four) independent tree ring chronologies that extend beyond 4500 years ago, and their age counts have been reported in peer reviewed articles and scrutinized for accuracy via their C14 correlations. It is a validated fact that these rings are accurate annual rings, and that is why they are used to calibrate C14 levels for use in dating things like the Egyptian artifacts.
What about THEM? Do they look the same? Got a pic? ... Irrelevant, the rings have been validated by scientists through the peer review process. It might be instructive for you to look at the papers discussing them. I can provide links to them if you are truly interested in learning rather than nit-picking.
... What pattern exactly of C14 in those rings do you see? You can't see C14 in the tree rings, it has to be measured. The pattern of the measured levels generally follows an exponential curve, as shown in Message 906 above:
for the 12,000 years covered by the dendrochronologies. The C14 levels are on a logarithmic scale, and the minor variations from from a straight line are due to variations in initial C14 levels in the atmosphere due to sun activity variations. The solar variations follow a general pattern as discussed here:
quote: So that's another correlation you need to explain with your "past nature" fantasy.
Fortunately for my views. it doesn't matter anyhow since trees grew fast! But I thought you would at least try to go down fighting. It is simple to comprehend that if trees grew fast a ring was NOT a year. So any similar patterns in dead tress in the vicinity of trees living, from the time of a nature change....would not represent years either. There is no evidence of fast growth in the tree ring chronologies, no evidence of a divergence from the C14 correlation at any point along the curve. There is not need to postulate a fantasy about fast growth when there is no evidence for it. Tree rings have different sections for different seasons, and if you don't have those different season sections in the rings, they are not annual rings. To make fantasy tree rings look like annual rings you would need to simulate seasonal changes every 4 minutes or so. There is no record in any history or mythology of such a weather pattern. That is objective empirical evidence that your postulated fast growth did not occur. You would also have to match that ring growth with changing C14 levels simultaneously around the world, and you would need a mechanism to accomplish this, matching precisely the exponential curve in the dendrochronology.
Your so called correlations are truly religious fantasies. Says the person who has presented any scientific evidence for his religious fantasy, and who thinks his opinion is as valid as scientific evidence based argument. It isn't.
Your idea that a former nature that was different would require the same time to produce a similar looking ring is ridiculous. To claim that because our nature would not allow for it is to do nothing more than to pretend our nature existed then. ... Curiously that is not what I said. What I said was that to produce a ring during your fantasy fast growth "past nature" that you would need to simulate a full seasonal cycle every ~4 minutes, because the rings have seasonal sections. Dendrochronologists use the seasonal growth to determine they are annual rings.
... Prove it first, or you may not use it. LOL. Your opinion has no relevance to what I can or cannot do. The correlations are sufficient to validate the evidence for scientific use. If you want to challenge the science you need to provide evidence that it is wrong, not just jibber-jabber assertions of your fantasy world. You, on the other hand have a task that you have been shirking: explaining 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Most of this post is non-sense and fails to address the correlations. For instance:
... Your graphs assume a same nature. ... Nope, the graphs plot the actually documented objective empirical evidence of measured actual C14 levels against the time scale for both the tree dendrochronology and the Egyptian artifacts. Nature is not involved.
You better correct wiki I guess. "Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues to date archaeological, geological and hydrogeological samples. "Wikipedia So it is used for dating because it is now radioactive. You see, you apparently assume it also was then? Why? The relationship of parents and daughters..what decays into what...would probably be a feature of our present nature. That you fail to understand the wiki article is no great surprise. Please show me where it talks about the the C14 dating using either parent or daughter levels. You can't because it doesn't. What it says is:
quote: No mention of parent/daughter elements in a decay chain and their use in dating.
Can you show that C14 was unstable in the past? Until you can show me that it was different and how that difference came to be, I have no need to assume that it has changed. That is how science works, not by fantasy or wishful thinking.
In the current nature, this is how it works. Irrelevant to the former nature unless you claim it was the same and can prove it! Whatever reverts to something now in this nature does so...in this nature! What happens in this state..stays in this state. I think we got that many posts ago. Not sure what you are missing here. The level of C14 does not mean a thing unless we have the current nature in place. Nothing wrong with C14. What is wrong is that you try to ask us to believe that it existed in the atomic relationship/decay process/ that is is now in! Why? Says who? Once again your so called correlations are shown to all stem from ONE belief. The evidence of a nature change is not in the tree and it's levels of C14. You have provided no evidence nature was the same! Until you do your jibber jabber must and will remain religion. Says you. In other words science cannot read evidences very well. If there were evidences, say the KT layer and iridium, science would simply miss it and imagine it was something else. All the interpretations of science are narrow minded belief based exercises in trying to make evidences fit into their religion. If we believed in a same state past nature we might look at the rings as if the C14 meant that certain ages existed. I am open minded and honest, so I simply ask that if you claim such a same nature in the past, and wish to use that belief for age claims...that you first prove it! Otherwise you are using belief only and engaged in circular belief. Trying to insert radioactive decay based dates into other things such as varves or etc...is of course also circular beliefs. Now add the 11 year solar cycle to the correlations that you have yet to explain (see Message 916) ... All the same non-sense over and over ad nauseum ... with no evidence of any change in the past. The correlations show this fantasy is not a viable belief. Hand waving is not an explanation. You have nothing to show, no evidence for a different nature, no evidence for a change in nature, no cause to take your rambling as worth considering in any scientific manner. Science uses evidence not fantasy. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are very good reasons to believe that radioactive decay has been the same since at least a short time after the Big Bang. Radioactive decay is governed by some of the most fundamental laws of the Universe. Any change would have wide-ranging consequences, many unexpected (unless you understand the physics). See these articles by physicist Steve Carlip, excellent summaries with references. And we also have Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? Of course we are dealing with someone so under educated in science that he thinks his little wishing games are valid arguments. A prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect quote: What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it replicates exactly evidence for old age while being much younger, means that his god is a joker and a liar. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
False. Ridiculous. It is only because C14 exists today in a relationship with other things, that you offered it in the first place. How it is produced, where it comes from, how it interacts with other elements..etc etc. All of it depends on the forces and laws that exist..obviously. Since C14 is used for dating because it is radioactive in this case we need not look for parent daughter material. You still claim it exists as a result of...certain things. "The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage. As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely." How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks As we can see, decay is assumed for the C14, and in fact is how the so called dates are derived. Same old one trick pony/religion. Decay is observed. The curve of actual levels of C14 against the annual tree ring calendar age shows the distinct pattern of exponential decay. The actual levels of C14 measured in samples from the Egyptian artifacts and the matching chronological calendar age for the the tree rings are the same. So it doesn't matter what you believe about radioactive decay in general or C14 decay in particular, there is an observed decline in measured amounts in the tree rings as you go back in time, and when those same amount levels are also found in the Egyptian artifacts for the same age by the Egyptian chronology it shows they are from the same time -- no C14 age calculation needed, just objective empirical comparison of the actual measured amounts.
Now all you have to do is prove that the current nature existed along with decay in the unknown past! We tire of you merely assuming a present state/nature. Correction -- if you are going to claim that the past nature was different from the present, then you need to show how that is possible, what mechanism was involved. The claim is yours to defend. Science operates on evidence, and so far there is zero evidence of any significant change in physical constants in the past, and that means there is zero evidence to be considered by science.
As for solar cycles, forget about it. Yes we have cycles now. Whether they were identical in the unknown past is not known. You merely attribute the currently seen cycles to the unknown nature of the past also. ... They are shown in the actual levels of C14 in the tree rings as you go back in time. They help produce the wiggle in the measured amounts that vary from a strict exponential curve. This is known objective empirical evidence. So your imaginary past nature perfectly mimics all the evidence of old age ... you must realize then that this makes your god a joker or a liar. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your first point involves artifacts from Egypt having some C14 that has the same pattern of C14 as trees from the era. This is no surprise. Whatever caused patterns in trees ought to also show up in stuff made from trees! Ha. So you agree that they are the same age, and that these ages correlate. Congratulations.
This issue is what nature existed, which would determine what the C14 was doing at the time, how it came to exist...etc etc. And curiously, it is up to you to show that it was not due to actual age as measured annual ring by annual ring in the tree dendrochronology. Provide the evidence, provide the mechanism or admit you have nothing but fantasy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course decay is observed. That does not mean it was observed in Noah's day. What is observed is the decay curve, not just the decay. Your magic mechanism must replicate that decay curve ring by ring ... including peaks in the wiggles every 11 rings ...
C14 is not good for dates except in this nature where we know it is a radioactive product behaving/relating to other elements a certain way. You may not simply assume nature was the same and date accordingly all based on what we now see happening. That is religion. Why not? You certainly have not provided any evidence or any reason to think otherwise. Just because you believe a fantasy made up scenario doesn't mean you need to be taken seriously.
Simply having some C14 present in tree rings does not tell us that the C14 was doing what it now does or radioactive etc etc. That would only be true as long as the nature we now observe was in place. Until you can provide some evidence and show when this fantasy made up scenario occurred you cannot say that it is not the nature we now observe. That is your problem, not mine.
By the way we do not need to nor would we be able to look at mechanisms of this current nature and try to use one /some of these to explain the different former nature. Curiously I am asking for ANY specific mechanism, just that you get on with it and provide ONE and then do some 'splaining. Don't forget, it's the correlations that you need to explain. I expect to be amused by your explanation for the Egyptian chronology now that you have admitted it correlates with the tree ring chronology for C14 levels -- not just once but several times as shown on the graph. Your fast growth concept will make a lot of those dynasties whip by in hyper-fast motion ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would tend to agree that most likely furniture used by folks in very ancient Egypt not too long after the flood period would have been from that time. Even if the furniture was a few hundred years old, basically it was close enough so that we could think of it as from that time. What time was that purported flood again? What is your evidence that it occurred? I haven't seen or heard of any.
Now I also would assume that trees and furniture even would exist from the time around any change in nature. After all Noah and others lived right through it! Curiously there is no record I'm aware of for Noah observing a change in nature, but there is plenty of evidence of you making stuff up.
The nature change would not affect how furniture looked. What would change is the forces and laws, so that after the change some things maybe became radioactive, and the ways atoms behaved and interacted would have been different. Sorry, not only is there no observed change in nature for the correlations, there is also no observed change in the forces and laws of nature, and they have been tested. See JonF comments in Message 918 and Message 920, and then there is Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, which goes into some detail on what happens when you fiddle with these constants. So now you have another whole basket of things to explain, like how the Uranium halos form if there is a difference in the past nature from the current one. Better get busy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
?? If the forces and laws the govern atoms changed, praytell, how would some halo in a rock be exempt from changing also? You really have no clue regarding how things work. You change the radioactive process you change the energy involved and you change the constants that hold atoms and molecules together. You make it easier for alpha decay to happen faster, then it starts happening in other elements that have no evidence of radioactivity, either now or in the past. And then you need a way to speed up beta decay so that the pattern of decay chains occurs. Meanwhile molecules don't form or they fall apart. You end up with a mess. Now to manage this so that it miraculously appears as the product of old age and current nature, you are going to have many more mechanisms to govern and tune each process to perfectly mimic current nature. What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it perfectly replicates exactly evidence for actual old age while being much younger, means that your god is a joker and a liar. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 932: You have no clue how things worked. What would be done is not change what we now have. In any nature God deems to be in place there is order. This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
Many people place the flood somewhere around 4500 years ago. Noah observed no trees, so he stayed in the ark. Then a week later birds returned with evidence of a fresh tree. So he knew he could give the order to vacate the ark. A leaf is not a full grown tree. That is not evidence of fast growth of trees. Can you provide objective empirical evidence of the landing site of the ark? This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
Noah observed men living a lot less years, because he lived centuries after the flood. If your dates are correct, he was alive when the furniture was made. What is your evidence for this claim? This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
We would not see any change in nature, because the nature we see is not what changed! And presto-chango magic did it, courtesy of your local god/s ... you just can't see it because it's magic ... Please stop with the garbage regurgitation, and start posting some substance to back your claims. Religious magic-god-did-it babble is not any kind of scientific argument and certainly does not explain any of the correlations. Your fantasy imaginary change in nature is less credible than the wizard of oz. The amusing thing about your posts on this thread is that you are adding to the massive evidence that creationists are incapable of explaining the correlations. Here we are at 934 posts on this version of this thread, add:
(this is Version 2 number 1, with new and updated information that has been uncovered by science since version 1) ... and you have 1,894 posts ... and not one explanation of a single correlation by a creationist, not one creationist has been able to explain the objective empirical evidence of several different age measuring systems have high degrees of correlations for the ages involved. Many have tried, all have failed. Like you they rarely get past the tree ring correlations. So you're in great company, making creationism look incapable of dealing with this reality. 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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
We haven't even seen the half of it here. This guy has been polluting discussion forums for years now and, in case you haven't seen it, things only get more bizarre as time goes on. Not really worth responding to. Yep, give a creationist an argument he thinks is stellar and not being able to recognize the faults, and they'll run with it ad nauseum. His argument about past nature is just a regurgitation of PRATT CA221 applied to everything ...
quote: Traces in the present, like the measurable actual existing levels of C14 in tree rings and artifacts. We have asked creation to show how he knows that the past was different and when that difference occurred, and there has been no answer to that question, his claim IS baseless. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD Message 937: This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief. Should be in a quote box so readers know where it came from. This is kindergarten style argument, not one supporting your assertions.
Your correlations are all belief based. As I said all dating always has to get down to radioactive decay dates. Your king lists and tree rings simply have no meaning for the far past unless nature was the same. You have shown you do not know or care and that you will blunder on, using your beliefs to model the past regardless. You wave off any possible change in nature because it does not fit with your naturedunnit dogma. That is not : honest and open minded, that is actually insanity. All history and bible records must be waved away in your religion. No creator can be considered. 'There could never have been any change because...there is no God'. That is not science. All your correlations are explained easily as religious drivel. All are based on only one belief. No science, just belief. The jig is up. Fixed it for you. Took out all the religious nonsense and your repeated assertions that have no evidential basis. This shows how empty your argument is. You have made 98 posts on this thread and have not presented a single piece of supporting evidence either for your fantasy assertion of a "former nature" being different from the present, nor for you claim that science is based on beliefs rather than objective empirical evidence, known facts and logical conclusion made, theories that are tested -- not because they are beliefs, but because they are tentative conclusions and possibly wrong, they are tested to remove wrong conclusions. It's called the scientific process. You should try it some time.
At best you've only accomplished the first step, and that hardly qualifies as sufficient for a science thread argument. Again, this is a science thread, and that means you need to present evidence to support your argument rather than just repeated it ad nauseum. And I see you have been warned. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My observation is that your correlation claims are all based on one belief. I need no counter hypothesis. Perhaps you should demonstrate this rather than repetitiously claim it ad nauseum. And sadly, for you, that doesn't make the evidence invalid, nor does it explain the correlations. You need to move beyond step 1. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Tree rings. You try to use the present nature as the basis for how long trees took to grow. If you talk C14, again you use the present nature as the basis for what C14 is all about and it's function and place in nature. Etc etc. Nothing you say varies from this one belief. Ever. It's not a belief, it is a tested conclusion. Scientists have tested and tested and tested to find differences between past behavior and current behavior and have found no measurable differences. Denial of this fact does not change the evidence, it is just a mechanism to let you fool yourself. This is what happens with cognitive dissonance when evidence/reality contradicts a strongly held belief. The stronger the dissonance the more you have to deny to maintain the belief. You can fool yourself with your babble, but you are not fooling anyone else. You're a poster child for the failure of creationism to deal with the reality of the world and the universe. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024