|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You cannot show us any correlation so called that does not rest n believing the ature was the same. Tree rings, corals, C14, radioactive dating, etc etc. Not one. ... Nope. Each ring is compared with ones today that show seasonal patterns of growth. That they show matching patterns of seasonal growth means we conclude they are annual rings. Then we test that conclusion with evidence from the past, and when the evidence from the past validates the annual tree ring age, we conclude that the system is accurate in measuring age. No belief involved.
... You did try to cite the king lists for dates..ha. cough cough. Amusingly, you still have not shown that Shaw's chronology is incorrect, so choke on it all you want, the evidence he used was a mixture and it used a consensus of dates from Egyptologists on what the kings list meant and when. This has been pointed out before, but you seem unable or unwilling to understand. Again, however, laughing at the evidence does not change the correlation, which you have yet to explain as other than them both showing the artifacts are from the same age. You have not shown that either one is erroneous in reaching that age, nor how both could reach the same age by two entirely different systems without it being representative of actual old age.
Sorry, you have religion. Your inability to understand the difference between religion and science is not my problem. This inability is what leads you to false conclusions. Dunning Kruger effect. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Naturally if trees grew fast they would also have matching patterns of rings in a given area. ...
This is not recorded in any history or religious or any other document, which means you are making it up to bolster your belief. That is not how science is done, this is a science thread and you need to support your position with objective empirical evidence.
As for Shaw's chronology you offered, that included king lists, face it, that is a joke. You can't justify dates by king lists. Period. In other words you have no answer to how the Egyptian chronology was modified by a different nature yet still correlates with the tree rings for the same measured age of the artifacts. That means you are unable to explain the correlations with a fantasy different nature. Epic fail. You've joined the ranks of other creationists that have failed to explain the correlations. This is a science thread, and denial of evidence is not a scientific argument. Curiously I see you use your own version of a "kings list" in Message 965:
Actually look at the graph. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/...ord-of-god-team-1-728.jpg If the nature change was in the days of Peleg, who was born they say 101 years after the flood, then no one lived more than a few hundred years plus after that. Here's the image:
The differences between this and the Egyptian Kings List are:
Your king list is a made-up fantasy with no relation to reality, and you mock the Egyptian list that is based on actual objective empirical evidence. Pathetic. You have no clue what real evidence involves.
Trying to make tree ring patterns jive with king lists is a joke. ... All I have done is observe that the two systems correlate for the ages of the artifacts. Dismissing the evidence as a joke is a sign of cognitive dissonance -- your inability or unwillingness to accept or deal with what the evidence shows -- AND it is not a refutation of the conclusion of old age, nor of the correlations. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : . 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are telling us how rings would have grown in a different state you know nothing about. So why would rings be wider in this different nature exactly?? Because (a) that is what happens with fast growing trees, and (b) because during fast growth fantasy time there would not be enough time for variations in climate to simulate annual rings.
No problem. There were different parts of a day and week. Day and night...cool of the day...maybe times when the mist watered...etc. Not enough time. That only gets you 360 potential rings and you need thousands. That means several cycles per day, not one. You have other problems: Day and night are not enough variation to produce simulated summer/winter growth patterns when rings cells normally take more than a day to grow. Plus again there is no mention of hot days and freezing nights in your source material and trees today do not go into stasis during freezing nights (think maple syrup and what causes the sap to run).
Wrong. No one says there was even any writing before Babel. Possibly men started to need to have written communication after that, and if we look at Egypt, we see they almost started by drawing pictures! Ha. There was no Babel. That's mythology not fact.
The only history we have that is of merit for that time is God's account. Even so, there are some traces of a different world in very ancient history, for example they remember a time when life spans were long and spirits lived with men. (even in the king list they list spirit gods as the first kings) You have no evidence that your "God's account" is anything but myth. The Egyptians have tombs and artifacts, but you have squat.
In Sumerian lists, we see super long life spans also. (of course pagan records are not accurate but we can glean basic realities of life to some degree from them) Myths are myths, not fact.
The artifacts are from the same general time, so however trees grew then would leave a similar pattern. Obviously. Your religious imposition of what C14 would have meant, and rings meant etc is not science. That does not explain how the Egyptian chronology has the same dates for the artifacts as the tree rings when correlated by C14 content ... which you also have not explained.
Really? No difference of opinion on whether some lived, like the spirit kings? Let's remember that the king list was scrawled by some unknown person on the back of an actual document. Not reading for comprehension are you? We know which Egyptian kings lived because of the artifacts and tombs. The spirit kings are beyond the end of the Shaw Chronology and your continued red herring use of them is laughable.
Some..yes. Tell us where to find the tomb of a spirit king? How can you verify the many centuries the Sumerian list claimed for some kings? Curiously not the tombs that we are dealing with for the artifacts that were found, guess where ... in the tombs of the kings that actually lived maybe?
Apparently they don't even know who the first king was. Which is irrelevant to the kings where the artifacts were found in their tombs. More red herring lack of ability to follow context.
The biggest item in there is question marks!!!! Ha. Some science. The artifacts in question are from the Old Kingdom, the third dynasty, not any earlier than that. This makes your continued railing on about spirit kings pointless and irrelevant babble. The tombs are objective empirical evidence as are the artifacts that were found in them. The point in time we are interested in is (from previously}:
"So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology." Try this instead: List of Pharaohs ... page down to the Old Kingdom, notice the dates on the left. Notice that 2660 BCE is the Third Dynasty. The beginning of the documentation with actual ages according to the objective empirical evidence used by the Egyptologists in this chronology.. No question marks there. Meanwhile ... your pseudo kings list is fantasy built on fantasy. I notice that you didn't mention it in your reply ... possibly because you know you have no objective empirical evidence to support it. Your attempt to foist this fable table on us and expect it to be taken seriously when you deny and mock the well supported Egyptian chronology data shows you are not debating facts. It puts all your arguments in question when you prefer fantasy documents to factual ones. Once again your argument fails to explain the correlation. Fantasy is not an explanation. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We do not know what happened with fast growing trees. What would happen in this nature is not the issue. Try to comprehend this..until you first prove there was a same nature, you simply may not use one. Period. Get over it. Multiple rings in a day does leave plenty of time for lots of rings in the hundred plus years after the flood which still had the former nature. Your claim there was no Babel is based on nothing. We are not here to indulge your strange dreams and preferences as to what happened in the past. Scripture is pregnant with fulfilled prophesy and archaeological evidences, and changed actual lives..etc etc. Your wishful empty waving in the wind is of zero consequence. This is all garbage assertion after garbage assertion and not a shred of evidence to support it. Your fantasy multiple rings -- hundreds every day -- just doesn't work. Get over it. Try something new, because this is a big FAIL on your part:
... it is the little details that show your fantasy is pure made-up hokum without a shred of supporting evidence. Ignoring these details doesn't make them go away.
Scripture is pregnant with ... ... pure fantasy without a shred of empirical objective evidence to support it and that is why the bible/scripture is not considered evidence on science threads.
If we look at the tree rings with the carbon also in them (which rings you cannot post a picture of for some reason even years after being asked) ... Message 900: 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.
Message 907: 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. Not only does this show the stump with 4,790 annual rings going from 1964 back to 4,844 years ago, but this is open to the public to go and photograph and touch and count the rings on their own. So you have been answered. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this is not my problem.
... we see that C14 also existed in the time after the flood. What relationship in nature it existed in at that time of course is not known. What we see is your attempts to try and make all things conform only to the current nature...i.e. your religion and beliefs. And this hand-waving explains nothing. It doesn't explain the variations recorded in the rings.
If your so called chronology includes the king lists, sorry, you cannot pick and chose only some parts of it that fit your belief system as convenient. What is used is the section of the chronology with absolute ages based on consensus evaluation by Egytologist. The older portion of the list may contain real pharaoh data, but without absolute dates they can't be used on this thread. This is similar to excluding the dead standing sentinels with over 7,000 annual rings - we don't have the absolute connection, so we can't use them for developing absolute chronologies.
Looking at old Chinese records I notice some people claim that the record shows long lives also near the flood and post flood era. Those long lives (times kings ruled) taper off also as we get closer to the present. The evidence mounts. "Ruler Reign LengthFuhi 115 years 2953-2838 B.C. ShenNung 120 years 2838-2718 B.C. Huang Ti 100 years 2698-2598 B.C. Shao Hao 84 years 2598-2514 B.C. Chuan Hsi 78 years 2514-2436 B.C. Ti Kao 70 years 2436-2366 B.C. Yao 102 years 2357-2255 B.C. Shun 50 years 2255-2205 B.C." http://s8int.com/phile/page44.html That doesn't look like a taper to me. I also note that the oldest is 120 years, an age which is possible today.
quote: There are several between 113 and 119 years of age at death. This is not extraordinary age. What I don't see is anyone over 122 years, while your amusing pseudo kings list is fantasy built on fantasy and mentions many from 150 to over 400 with no evidence for them, supposedly in the same time period.
There are no dates on this purported chronology and no evidence to support them -- it is useless fantasy based on fantasy. Garbage in garbage out. Like all your assertions. AND ... I also note that the Chinese chronicles do not mention a world wide flood, the earliest ruler in this list is from 2,953 BCE, or 4,970 years ago, well past your purported flood date. If you accept it as evidence for one thing you have to accept it as evidence for other things as well. Fail.
As for the tombs you claim for all the kings...do we have tombs for all the question marks I posted?? Ha. What a joke. Not what I said. What we have are some tombs, from them we know that the kings inside were real. Those include the ones in the absolute age section (Old Kingdom, 3rd Dynasty and later) that are used in the Egyptian Chronology. They also include ones earlier than the absolute age section, but they cannot be used as they are discontinuous from the absolute chronology. Your failure to comprehend what people are saying make your posts silly and ridiculous. Your repetition of assertions that have been shown to have serious problems, without showing why they are not problems (not by assertion, by demonstration with evidence), shows you have squat for an argument. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Back again with repeated assertions that amount to fantasy and wishful thinking ...
Actually a different nature could not be expected to be explained merely using THIS nature! You kidding? You simply use this nature TO expalin it all! In a different nature we do not know the function/role of C14 in nature, nor how trees grew. Etc. What we know is what the evidence shows. The evidence does not show a change in nature at any time. You have not presented any evidence (objective empirical evidence) that there was a change in nature, all you have is fantasy and wishful thinking ... and that means all your arguments are imaginary made-up fantasy, not a real argument that deserves comments. What is telling is what you don't deal with, not just the actual objective empirical evidence of old age, but the ludicrous fake evidence you presented with your graph of life spans:
RAZD, Message 987: What I don't see is anyone over 122 years, while your amusing pseudo kings list is fantasy built on fantasy and mentions many from 150 to over 400 with no evidence for them, supposedly in the same time period.
There are no dates on this purported chronology and no evidence to support them -- it is useless fantasy based on fantasy. Garbage in garbage out. Like all your assertions. When you mock the evidence based Egyptian Chronology and then try to foist this bs pile of made up fantasy based on fantasy as evidence of long lives (while having not one shred of evidence that they actually lived, that the purported fantasy flood actually occurred, or that there was actually any kind of change in nature after the purported fantasy flood) on this thread as rational argument, then there is no reason to take you seriously. When you continue to repeat assertions while adding nothing to support your argument, you are not debating in good faith. You are just trying to hammer your personal fantasy on a thread with real evidence, when your position is hokum, pure unadulterated hokum, with less value than all the ant frass in Antarctica ... Let me know when you have real evidence.
We could start with any objective empirical evidence that your fantasy flood actually occurred and when it occurred. Because all your assertions hinge on that being a fact instead of a fantasy. A peer reviewed scientific article on that would be a place to start. If you can't provide that evidence, then your argument is kaput and useless drivel. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You say evidence does not show a different nature. Yet you post no evidence we can look at regarding the few hundred rings in question! We don't know what they look like. We have not seen any patterns in those rings posted for inspection by you, or even a close up pic. You offer religion. Blind faith. You don't know what they look like because you haven't looked. Curiously the fact that you haven't seen the evidence does not mean it does not exist, you need to know where to look. One place is the location of the Prometheus stump, which is open to the public. A quick google on "Bristlecone pine tree rings" brings up lots of pictures like this:
Notice that this picture shows another correlation with a historical date ... A basic investigation into the science of dendrochronology tells you what annual rings look like, or you could read the beginning of the thread ... (see Message 2):
quote: To cram the evidence into your fantasy fast growth you need to produce a full ring many cells thick every 4 minutes, one that shows the same annual pattern shown above with summer growth fading into winter stasis. You have yet to explain how that can possibly happen in your magic time. Pretending go-did-it is not science, it is religious fantasy escapism. Then there is the C14 levels in the rings taken from the atmosphere as the rings grew, and for your fantasy changing every 4 minutes in perfect synchrony around the world. And then there is the 11 year cycle of peaks in the C14 levels ... all not explained by fast growth. AND it doesn't explain the correlation to the Egyptian chronology. Attacking the Egyptian chronology as useless does not explain the correlation.
You diss the Scripture records of who lived for no reason. They say Abraham was a contemporary with Noah and Shem. You want to claim Abe never lived also? Where does your ignorance based personal incredulity end? BASICALLY ALL HISTORY IS FAKE UNLESS YOU WAVE IT INTO SOME SORT OR SUPPOSED REALITY? Correction, I diss what you assert with no supporting objective empirical evidence. There is no evidence that your mythical fantasy flood ever occurred, no evidence that Abraham, Shem, Noah etc were real people and not myth. And yes, all mythology is considered fake history until you can show evidence for it being real.
You offer a king list that is known and admitted to be no good for dating. ... So you say, repeatedly, but you offer no evidence of this for the period used, while several publications show the absolute dates as validated for the period in question.
... A list scrawled on the back of a document by some unknown scrawler. A list that is half missing the fragments! A list that includes spooks! A list from which many kings are question marks! Etc etc. ... But not for the period in question. The Egyptian chronology I referred to shows history backed up by objective empirical evidence. Here is the previous discussion of this again (Message 979):
quote: Repeating a point that has already been addressed and invalidated (at least twice so far), does not make it any more valid, it just shows you are not debating in good faith, that you don't learn and don't change your tune when you are shown to be wrong. The pseudo made up "chronology" (with no dates) that you presented is NOT even supported by one tiny shred of objective empirical evidence, yet you seem to think it is superior to the Egyptian one. That is laughable.
... It seems you are here to insult God and the bible and history and make stuff up? Says the person making stuff up right left and center, the person who has invented an imaginary "former nature" so he can pretend that actual objective empirical evidence does not show an old age for the earth. Here's what you didn't answer, again (Message 996):
quote: So you are still spouting unsupported drivel. Repeating it does not make it any more valid or real. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The evidence for the Flood is obvious. ... So where are the peer reviewed scientific articles based on objective empirical evidence that support this assertion?
... . It's just a matter of standing back and noticing the facts apart from the absurd interpretations laid on them. ... Where is the documentation that they are "absurd interpretations" rather than ones based on all the evidence, including the little details you like to overlook?
... But WE have a written testimony to the past which is a lot more than you guys have. Curiously a single anecdotal story is not objective empirical evidence, where is the evidence to support the claim that this written story is anything but mythology? Science, on the other hand, has lots of evidence, including but not limited to the evidence in this thread that shows the earth is significantly older than any young earth scenario. The evidence includes multiple correlations between different measuring systems that validate the age measurements. You yourself cannot get beyond the living Bristlecone pine trees:
quote: There is so much more evidence in this thread that to continue believing in a young earth is willfully ignorant at best and delusional at worst. Ignorance is curable ... but you have to be willing to let go of falsified beliefs.
... And fossils in the bazillions are in-your-face evidence of exactly what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things. ... ... and carefully place them delicately into sorted layers that show evolutionary changes in species from layer to layer ... matching radiometric isotope level changes from layer to layer that somehow fall in perfect match to the exponential decay curve ... (correlations ... what this thread is about), something that doesn't -- can't -- happen in the real world floods because of the real world constraints of physics ... Among all the other problems with your flood scenario/s that have polluted other threads. It doesn't belong here, it belongs on a flood thread ... 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The evidence for the Flood is scientific fact, you know, actual sedimentary deposits, ... ... that show deposition occurred over many years, due to the radioactive isotope levels in them, many depositions that alternated small fine particles with heavy large particles when these particles settle at different rates (Stoke's Law), some of them with annual patterns (see Message 5, Lake Suigetsu Varves).
... actual fossils in the bazillions, ... ... that are sorted layer by layer just as if they were laid down over centuries, with small and large fossils of one age mixed up, but never mixed up with other layer fossils, sorted by their evolutionary heritage of generational change in each species that is shown to occur layer after layer. Here is an example, a (simplified) foraminifera biochart:
quote: bold added for emphasis Geological Age vertically, Ecology horizontally.
quote: When we find these index fossils they are always sorted in the same order from top layers to bottom layers and they always correlate with the geological age of the layers they are found in. There is no known mechanism for flood water to do this sorting, just as there is no known mechanism for flood water to sort radioactive isotope levels to match the radiometric ages of these layers.
... not any of your wacko stuff. The correlations show that sedimentary layers correlate with age with the radioactive isotope levels and with the species buried in them that show evolution from layer to layer. Explain the correlations. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
There IS evidence for *a* flood. Indeed there is evidence of many small floods as well as of sunken cities (due to sea level rise and land sinking after volcanic eruptions and which occurred over periods of years). Annual floods of major river flood plains also leaves records of flooding (Egypt, Nile delta sediments for instance). But none of these floods were world wide events. Certainly the Black Sea flood was catastrophic compared to these common floods, and certainly it is the best evidence of a factual flood behind the myths of great floods (Gilgamesh, Atra-Hasis, bible, etc). Of course the mythical parts (gods, building a boat, saving all types of animals, world wide flooding) are typical of epic stories embellishing actual events. Certainly there was no evidence of a genetic bottleneck of all world wide species ... or even of domestic animals ... at that time period. What we have is a lack of correlation between biblical myth and actual evidence of floods. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The evidence for floods is obvious. There is no justification for extrapolating many floods into one Flood. There is also no evidence of a flood topping the White Mountains for the last 9,000 years (see Message 2) because the growth there is not disrupted. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
(RAZD, Message 1025: There is also no evidence of a flood topping the White Mountains for the last 9,000 years (see Message 2) because the growth there is not disrupted.)
If the high mountains were pushed up after the flood, why would there be? If pigs could fly is not an argument from factual information. You have not established (a) that there was such a flood, (b) that there was any different nature before the flood, and (c) that significant hyper-fast geological formations occurred after the flood. This makes your argument vacuous and irrelevant, without foundation or reason. This is a science thread, and that means arguments are supposed to be based on facts not fantasy. All you have is fantasy and self delusion. More to the point, the climate shown by the tree rings is consistent with a high altitude, cold, short growing season environment as exists today, and this is one piece of evidence that the mountain peaks did not undergo a sudden massive uplift. There are other in the geology of the mountains that tells us they have been there a loooong time. Oh look, you make a fool of yourself again:
Message 1033 ... the bible. The history in that book deals with man and God. Not detailed physical geology. So it tells you nothing about sudden mountain formation, and this shows it is just you making stuff up out of thin air in order to post a silly vacuous argument with no discernable value.
Message 1030: You show a picture of tree rings from 50 BC? Ha. You are defeated. Says the person who has not made a single valid point yet in this thread. Your failure to understand what is posted, and why, is not winning. You're in an axe fight without an axe. All you are doing is taking pot-shots with some bizarre hope of finding a nick in the thread, but you fail to realize that the real strength of this thread comes not from the details and multitude of ways to measure time, valuable as they are, but from the correlations between them. It is easy to make up ways each measurement system could be in error, but -- as you have found -- not anywhere near so easy to explain the correlations. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Stop claiming that rings are ...anything at all in the pines. ... Why? What have you presented, other than your pathetic delusional assertions about a different nature (which are not scientific evidence of anything other than that you are deluded)? Nothing. Curiously that doesn't invalidate the tree rings in the pines, or the ones in the oaks ... the other two dendrochronologies that confirm the validity of the pine rings.
The ONLY rings that matter are the ones beyond 4500 level that you have provided no pics of, no details about and seem to like to avoid. You asked for photos of the tree rings and I showed you one. Now you complain that it doesn't show the ring 4500 years old. And yet I have shown you where that can be found, where it exists in one of many trees, where anyone can count the rings and see how many there are, and where they are actual objective empirical evidence of age beyond 4500 years into the past. You keep raising this as if it were some critical point that challenges the whole thread. It doesn't, it doesn't challenge anything except your ability to understand what real evidence is. When there is objective empirical evidence we find many sources to show it's validity, many documents by people using these factual artifacts. So I did a little more googling (another 5 minutes of my time doing what you would not bother to do), and I found something that I can add another reference to my revised version of this thread that will emphasize how good the evidence of old age is:
quote: So here we have another picture, this time of one of the several sections of Prometheus that have been used to verify the age of this tree.
... The ONLY rings that matter are the ones beyond 4500 level that you have provided no pics of, no details about and seem to like to avoid. Here's another:
quote: Done and double done. Because of these articles I can now use 4,862 years for the age of Prometheus instead of the original 4,844 years. Thanks for improving the details and the accuracy of my posting on the Bristlecone pines in general and Prometheus in particular. This is the inevitable result of nit-picking comments on objective empirical evidence, as we have seen: answering you has improved the documentation here, and on the Egyptian chronology. Keep going, and you will just dig yourself deeper into a hole you can't explain your way out of.
Message 1056: Not all mountains pushed up in the continental moves were huge. Irrelevant. Please keep to the facts and not posting your fantasies ... See Message 1044 for more details on this silly fantasy purported flood argument ... which just gets more laughable with later posts ...
Message 1052 ... as far as the bible goes. When the mountains get flattened it is sudden, and simultaneous to all the towers on earth falling! It also happens when all islands flee away and move out of their place (the continents rejoining swiftly?)..and Jesus returning to earth. ... I suppose the islands will suddenly evolve legs ... LOL. It seems that creationists are incapable of supporting arguments with facts, so they try to chip away at the scientific evidence and post imaginary fantasy drivel instead. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why? Because in claiming things about rings pre 4500 level, you are in unknown territory as far as what nature existed. There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 4,500 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch. The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 4500 years ago. There is no evidence of things being different earlier than 8,000 years ago. None. Zero. Zilch. The rings show the same characteristics of annual growth that we see post 8,000 years ago. The absolute tree ring age correlates with the absolute part of the Egyptian chronology for 17 artifacts, with the earliest being 2827 BCE to 2651 BCE, and Shaw's Chronology gives 2660 BCE. Note that +/-88 years in over 4,700 years of tree ring chronology is an error of +/-1.9%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age, but it is mostly due to the wiggle of the 14C levels that match these sample data points to several different times. There is also no mention of a different nature in either Egyptian or Chinese chronicles. The evidence shows that there was no measurable difference in nature beyond 4500 years ago and thus any argument based on this fantasy is worse than useless. The scientific consensus from many different fields is that there is little measurable difference between any time in the past and the present, and that - until there is objective empirical evidence otherwise - there is no need to consider any hypothetical change for the purpose of doing scientific research. You have no objective empirical evidence of any change in nature.
No one wants/needs to invalidate the rings beyond 4500 deep. What you do need to do is show these rings and any details you claim about them, and demonstrate that they were a product of this current nature! Simply picking up other dead tress with rings in the same area does not tell us what nature they grew in! Yet you incessantly offer this as some sort of 'collaboration'. Nope. The onus is on you to show objective empirical evidence of a different nature and when it happened, because the evidence in this thread, especially the correlations, validates the tree ring data and the ages they record, while you are a like a lone voice gibbering in the dark.
Not bad actually. Better than I was able to come up with as far as pics. Too bad you can't focus on the rings that are older then 4500 though, which relegates the pics to meaninglessness. Then, if you could do that, let's see the precise carbon 14 data on THOSE rings that you try to sluff off on us also! Moving the goal posts again. Typical creationist failed god-of-the-gaps argument. Too bad that you can't focus on the evidence, while the rest of the world has no problem with it, and the evidence has been validated by several different scientific groups in peer reviewed articles.
You have not really done that. Is the data on C14 there and specific to the pre 4500 level rings? Where is the close up of the rings that matter, the ones older than 4500? You really thought posting some pic of a the tree that had no specific relation to the old rings helps you?! It proves you really don't know what you are talking about and plead faith alone! Congratulations, your silly nit-picking has now reached the level of sublime ridiculousness ... you want to see C14. The data is documented in peer reviewed scientific articles, and if you want the information then contact the authors. Anyone who doesn't believe the information is there is a fool, idiot or troll.
They don't agree on age?? A scientific review changed the age by 18 years or 0.4%. 4,862 is now the accepted age because the evidence was reviewed twice. This is how science operates, not by wishful delusional thinking, but by review of the evidence.
Oh, brother, here we go again with the missing rings thnig!!!!! Only you. Other people can follow what is actually written and understand what it means.
quote:Ha ha ha ha ha. TOTAL same state past based corrections!!!! Except that I only use the absolute known age from the rings that are there. The tree is obviously older because the early growth rings have been eroded away (look at the picture of the section and you will see there is no center). Nobody else seems to have trouble understanding this simple fact.
They disagree on age, then correct it using a few same state past beliefs about what a tree should do....then talk of missing rings, then come up with some new date...and all the while we see NO rings past 4500 on display in the article or your posts! Nope. Not for the actual counted rings that are actual factual objective empirical evidence that is documented in several places and where the actual sections exist to verify those counts by anyone that wants to make a legitimate inquiry.
We wait. I laugh. Like a fool that gibbers in the darkness of his delusions. The rest of the world ignores this foolish ranting, because the evidence shows (a) it is obviously, blatantly wrong (or misunderstanding), and (b) what he rants about is totally irrelevant and completely fails to address (1) the objective empirical evidence of actual factual age and (2) the correlations. Or like a troll that thinks he can disrupt a thread, and ends up providing evidence of how vacuous creationist arguments are ... like being in an axe fight without an axe. Or like the Black Knight (Monty Python, Holy Grail}
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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Notice no DNA from dinos or the time before the flood? ... False.
quote: Once again you are shooting blanks on a science thread, making unfounded assertions without any basis on objective empirical evidence. The correlations confirm the age chronology with no evidence of any different nature at some arbitrary chosen but actually unknown time. This thread is about correlations, not 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 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From YOUR link " The decay kinetics have been measured by accelerated aging experiments further displaying the strong influence of storage temperature and humidity on DNA decay.[28] Nuclear DNA degrades at least twice as fast as mtDNA. As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, may have stemmed from contamination of the sample." But that doesn't relate to the egg DNA in the paper. Furthermore, your comment was (Message 1060):
... Notice no DNA from dinos or the time before the flood? ... So whether or not the DNA is degraded, your comment is shown to be false. Now you are moving the goalposts rather than acknowledging that your comment was in error. That is not debating in good faith, and this further pursuit of misunderstood small details just provides more evidence that you do not have any objective empirical evidence to support your assertions. Also see Message 1274 of Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? for some discussion of DNA from pre 4,500 years ago regarding humans, neanderthals and chimps. It is interesting, since this thread is about correlations, to see that the fossil record and the DNA record correlate for the descent of humans, neanterthals and chimps from common ancestors at two points in the past:
quote: Again, there is no rational reason for such correlation of two entirely different approaches to occur unless they both are correct. Enjoy.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