|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Some of the earmarks of the great flood of Noah were that all animals and people on earth, save those on the ark all died. Oh good grief. That is not an earmark of a flood. That is just repeating what you fictional story says.
That qualifies as a great extinction if ever anything ever did! It would if there was any evidence that it happened, but it turns out to be total fiction.
The water also came from space and below the earth and that is where science says iridium also comes from. There is no evidence that that is anything other than your fantasy about a fictional flood in a fictional story in a fictional book. Iridium is not water soluble. Interesting that you make up BS about science when you think it might support your fantasy and the rest of the time "it's religion." Your ignorance is showing.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yes. The interpretation that is wrong is that the iridium was from space object that caused the great extinction of the time. In your fantasies. Where's your evidence?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
No. Not 'something'. But science foists itself on people as more than just beliefs. That is the sin. Science is completely different from beliefs. Science is a method for determining the most accurate description of reality and the Universe.
That is the sin. Ignorance is a sin.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You have failed to defend your religion. Don't try throwing stones at superior beliefs. You have failed in your defense of your fantasy. All you have is fictional beliefs.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
creation writes: One of the points made in these forums that brings up questions in my mind is jars "bottleneck thesis"...
Some of the earmarks of the great flood of Noah were that all animals and people on earth, save those on the ark all died. That qualifies as a great extinction if ever anything ever did! The water also came from space and below the earth and that is where science says iridium also comes from.jar writes: Here is the detailed description of the first argument (the genetic bottleneck). In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote: In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote: We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote: and in Genesis 7:
quote: In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT...
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticist in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Year's Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. How is any creationist going to challenge that? (Apart from some magical explanation?) Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I could drive a mac truck through the gaping holes in your science/religion.
Considering that there is not such thing as a 'mac truck' that would either be incredibly easy in your fantasy or impossible in the real world.
So unless someone posts on topic here and something of substance, I guess I'll try to let the thread R.I.P. Ha.
Considering your failure to accomplish anything here, that might be a good idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Using the word reality does not make you related. Sorry. Asking us to show you some conduit to the inner earth that existed thousands of years ago only, is awfully foolish.
And even more revealing when you can't do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Let's look then if the KT layer involves any sediment!
Heh, heh .... For those who are interested, that's what we've been doing all along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I fear you have fallen into the trap of expecting the troll's words to represent something in the real world. That appears not to be the case. It appears that its use of language is more akin to Mark Twain's character Mr. Ballou, who used words for their resonance and grandeur rather than their meaning. Words, for this person, are more akin to a mantra, a drone, a soothing and repetitive collection of sounds. Kind of like really bad scat singing without the music. The lack of connection to reality is of no concern.
Oh, not much fear of that. We've been going round and round on this "alternate states argument ' for years now. It never changes. I post more for other the audience to read than for the individual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Well, if you had problems with the link you should have said so. I just clicked on the link and it works fine! It does not show what you think it shows.
quote: My take-away from the article on the 5480 BC event:
Ie -- nothing starkly, spectacularly different from other sections of data, nothing that would indicate any purported "change in nature" unless all such excursions also indicate a change. Obviously this is not the case, especially as several are well within historical times. The overall excursion from an average production is not large in comarison to the overal data of variations -- (0.51/y = 0.051%/year) -- is not a major excursion. It also seems to me that 5480 BCE (7497 years ago) is not what I would call "close" to 4500 years ago.
Bonus: you get another picture of typically narrow Bristlecone pine tree rings, this time showing rings from over 4500 years ago. The astute reader will observe that they are similar to the rings see previously in other pictures.
PLUS: Sample 71-59 is from the Bristlecone pine chronology, and is listed in the Table I in Message 1115. Ring structure quite visible. This also shows that pictures of specific rings are available if you ask the authors of the papers documenting the data. Nothing in this study shows any cause to pretend there is an alternate reality where tree rings grow willy-nilly without rhyme or reason or pretended season. Nothing in this study shows why the correlations exist in this thread if the time scales are not correct. What this article shows is that C14 varies from year to year around an aeverage production, and that is now a known maximum variation. This is no surprise.
Try to accept the evidences. The unprecedented anomaly at the time in question in the tree rings. The confluence of historical data that shows that ages were longer. (China, Sumer, Scripture..etc). Guess who actually has correlations here for the evidences!!? Ha. Let's note also, that history was REWRITTEN by the bristlecone pine tree rings!!! The radiocarbon dates were tweaked drastically to fit the rings, which forces a reevaluation of the ages that had been used!!!!!!! It is becoming clear that the so called correlations of science are inbred circular religion! Curiously the study emphatically says nothing of the kind.
... The radiocarbon dates were tweaked drastically to fit the rings, ... This false accusation is not found in the study either. Funny how that happens to creationist claims, especially when "reporting" on an article they don't understand or haven't read. Perhaps you have evidence of this malfeasance to share? Exposing this would ruin careers around the world and earn the exposure fame and fortune ... But you don't have it. It's the old scientist old earth conspiracy that is also evidence that the creationists cannot deal maturely with objective empirical evidence presented in peer reviewed scientific journal articles. Anyone who makes claims like this is not being honest. 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:
|
I could drive a mac truck through the gaping holes in your science/religion. I can see why you resort to obscure whining rather than join those trying to defend their faith here! But I guess it is almost time for Raz to demand that no one post anymore 'off topic'! (being defeated like the rest of y'all, what else could he do to try and save face?) So unless someone posts on topic here and something of substance, I guess I'll try to let the thread R.I.P. Ha. So far all you have done is to try and bury the thread under a pile of irrelevant meandering fantasy void of any objective empirical evidence. ALL the off-topic posts lead back to you making red herring posts and failing to deal with the correlations. Instead you just keep digging deeper into ignorance and fantasy Defeated? Sooo funny. You can't defeat facts with fantasy, opinion is remarkable ineffective at changing reality, and that's all you have: you lost before you started, what happens when you have no supporting evidence. So far you have made 204 posts on this thread and not one explains the correlations, not one looks at the other evidence and further correlations, not one is a cohesive argument built on facts. Yes most of them have been off-topic, but somehow that doesn't translate into dealing with the issue of correlations. The correlations are still winning, you've accomplished squat but a rude interuption.
So unless someone posts on topic here and something of substance, I guess I'll try to let the thread R.I.P. Ha. Without your posts -- such as they are -- the tread is likely to be more fact-filled, informative and issue oriented, waiting for the next creationist. Certainly your comments have not affected the evidence (kinda hard for fantasy to do that), the correlations between data sets, or the thesis of this thread. They have been a waste of your time and a waste of band-width. All you have done is make the thread stronger, by demonstrating -- again -- that creationists in general (and you in specific) are not capable of explaining the correlations, and thus fail to show how the earth could be young when the evidence shows it is old. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
Well that's it exactly. The troll is just the bug on the stickpin for the students to examine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
From your quote:
"The formation mechanisms of the chromitite seams in the Bushveld Igneous Complex are highly debated: numerous mechanisms have been proposed." Igneous Complex. Their's no doubt that the Bushveld is an Igneous Complex. Not deposited by magic fluddies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Igneous Complex. Their's no doubt that the Bushveld is an Igneous Complex.
You don't get it. Not deposited by magic fluddies. This is easy: In the previous state, you could go fishing in lava lakes and catch Cambrian trout. I just love doing YEC science!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But I guess it is almost time for Raz to demand that no one post anymore 'off topic'! (being defeated like the rest of y'all, what else could he do to try and save face?) This is funny, because you are the one who keeps going off-topic in the hope that nobody notices you failing to deal with the correlations. This comment is like this was your plan, to bury the thread in useless drivel. It's the typical creationist ploy when they can't answer questions. In doing so, they prove they can't answer the questions -- here related to the correlations:
Message 1: The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results. Or more precisely, why do the tree ring age derived from the C14 content of the artifacts in the Egyptian tomb match the independently derived Egyptian Chronology agree on the age for the tomb? For all the artifacts tested? By going on rabbit hole excursions off topic the creationist betrays either a lack of ability to explain this (except by both agreeing on actual age), or a lack of understanding of the task they need to undertake. Positing fast ring growth does not explain the correlation, mocking the Egyptian chronology does not explain the correlation.
creation has now posted 204 times on this thread but has not addressed the correlations once. This thread and the two the preceded it now have 1818 total posts ... without one creationist providing an explanation for a single one of the multiple correlations. This is a very strong piece of evidence that the ages presented here are valid and incontestable by creationists and their pipe-dreams of a young earth. So do I mind if he continues with more off-topic nonsense? Nope, the more he does it, the more he proves my point. 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