|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are not in a position to be able to measure differences because you approach all things as if nature was the same! Tree rings for example. Your personal opinion is not worth the bandwidth wasted to post it. It is not evidence of anything but possible delusion.
If trees grew fast, then the rings in trees or furniture made from them...would NOT represent yearly cycles. Nor would C14 represent what it now does. The question is not how these things look to someone assuming nature was the same!! The question is whether you can prove it was or not. You have not provided any evidence that the tree rings grew fast, that is just a hypothetical concept you have made up to suit your beliefs, it is not scientific. The FACT that all the evidence in the world, from all the different branches of science, shows that nature has not changed significantly over large periods of geological time is evidence enough that it is not necessary to incorporate any unfounded fantasy of "former nature" in our pursuit of knowledge. Science is based on facts/evidence rather than fantasy. This "fast growth" fantasy does not explain the correlations of C14 and rings. Why should they both change in such synchrony, and why should the Bristlecone pines correlate with the Irish oaks and the German oaks, and why should the C14 have peaks that correlate with the 11 year sunspot activity cycle. You have been told before that tree rings have distinct sections that correlate with the seasons of growth and stasis, and have not provided an explanation for how these patterns are made by fast growth. When we look at actual trees that grow fast we see two patterns: (1) no multiple growth rings in a year but wide growth rings for each year, and (2) multiple rings caused by weather stress that show large growth cells during low stress and small growth cells during stress periods ... but no marker of stasis except at the terminus of the annual growth. IE fast growth does not form multiple rings that replicate annual growth rings. You have been told how many rings you need to form for your fantasy to have a ghost of a chance of possibly replicating the dendrochronological history -- and at around 4 minutes a ring it becomes ridiculous to consider how you could possible pack in the C14 variations in perfect synchrony around the world along with the climate variations that are shown by the evidence in the rings. There is no recorded documentation of the kinds of variations that would be necessary to cause such ring formation in such short a time period in perfect synchrony around the world. It's a ridiculous, unworkable, worthless premise.
Not at all. You cited certain rings of a certain age and it is not moving any posts to get you to pony up some details here about those specific rings! Your fail screams out at us. No. We need to see the specific data on the specific rings older than 4500. If you claim a C14 pattern there....show the rings from there, and some graph or something dealing with those rings that shows some pattern for C14 in THEM. If you claim dark/light/missing/etc rings, then let;s see the data for the rings older than 4500!? No allusions. Facts. Says the person who apparently cannot "pony up" a single piece of evidence for a single detail of his assertions and has not supplied a single fact. You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: we know it is there. This is the same diversionary tactic as on the Prometeus ring evidence. It gets you nowhere but wasted bandwidth. You have been shown the correlation data before, it is also shown in Message 4:
quote: That graph documents the actual measured C14 content (converted by math into a "C14 age" based on the Libby decay rate originally used in C14 dating) against the tree rings (converted to actual age because annual rings). The comments following the graph pertain to your assertions and why those assertions are wrong.
Great, so forget older then if it is missing. And you have been told that those missing rings are not included in the age used. It appears you don't learn a single thing from what you have been told.
Let's say we had some dead trees with rings nearby the pines. Let's say they were hundreds of rings deep. Your belief system would simply add these to the age af the living tree, and do so by using the rings as being from a yearly/seasonal cycle!! So if we had 4800 rings from the living tree, and say, seven hundred from dead trees in the vicinity, you would declare an age in this example of 5500 years worth of rings. Your understanding of the field of dendrochronology is pathetic in it's vapidness, especially when it is explained in simple terms a school child can understand in this thread. See Message 2. The annual rings have markers that show the seasonal growth patterns and the stasis point for the end of each annual ring. Each ring also contains climate data and that results in different width rings that can be matched from one sample to the next to align them in chronological order. The FACT that the two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies match ring for ring for all but two (2) rings in over 5,000 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology. The FACT that the two independent Oak chronologies match ring for ring for all but 99.5% of rings in over 10,434 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology. The FACT that the two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies AND the two independent Oak chronologies match ring for ring for 99.5% of rings in over 8,000 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology. You don't appear to understand what evidence is, nor how it is actually used in science, and your skimming of information looking for anomalous or seemingly missing details does not make any kind of refutation of the evidence nor of what that evidence shows. Nor do you understand how the correlations work to strengthen each other Making up alternate reality fantasy does not refute the evidence.
In reality if the dead trees grew in the former nature quickly, and the living tree started it's growth also in that former nature, we might have had all the rings in the dead trees and hundreds in the living tree...all grow in decades or years or a century..etc. In reality there is absolutely no evidence of any "former nature" and no evidence of any change in nature, so any comments related to this vacuous concept are gob-slobbering drivel. Pony up your evidence or -- by it's absence, admit you have none.
Since you provided no empirical pictures of the rings and no specific data, your case, by your own standard is illegitimate! Says the person who apparently cannot "pony up" a single piece of evidence for a single detail of his assertions and has not supplied a single fact. You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: everyone else knows it is there. This is the same diversionary tactic as on the Prometheus ring evidence. It got you nowhere but wasted bandwidth. You cannot explain the correlations by nit-picking the evidence, and the sooner you realize this the sooner you can start contributing more than a bad example of creationist debate behavior to this thread. As it sits, you are just another creationist that has failed to 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It is not my opinion that science uses a same state past basis for models. ... Science uses what works, and the conclusion from many scientific investigations is that there has been very little, if any, variation in the basic behavior of the universe in the past, ie -- no significant changes. If there were evidence of changes then they would be used. Your opinion that using the same state amounts to religion is just that -- your opinion.
... Nor is it my opinion history and the bible indicate great differences in the past on earth. Sorry, that is blatantly your opinion. History certainly does not show any changes to the way things work, and the bible is not a work of science or history.
It is your opinion/belief that no other beliefs are allowed or matter regarding tree rings. Gong! What is allowed is what the evidence shows, and so far the evidence shows age by annual rings, and this has been verified and validated by several independent groups. Science is based on evidence not personal opinions.
You have not provided any evidence the trees grew slow!!! You just assumed and believed blindly. The same way you assume and blindly believe in your one belief in all other areas!! The fact you turn around and try to conflate/confuse/combine several areas of evidence with that sole belief and have the unmitigated gall to try and call this exercise in religious fanaticism 'correlations ' is appalling. It's what the evidence shows. The FACT of correlations is not an invention, it is an observation: two different sets of data, same results for specific dates of artifacts or events. You cannot change the evidence by willful thinking or opinion.
You have been told before that any dark/light patterns in very old pines (which you failed to even be able to show us at all) if grown in the former nature and fast, obviously would not represent seasons of the year. There is no former nature. There is no evidence that shows there was a change in nature. The evidence shows there is no change in nature. You have not provided any evidence of change in nature.
You know NOTHING about what processes were involved or even if there was photosynthesis in place at the time...etc etc so you cannot tell us that dark/light patterns at that time had to represent seasons! You are talking out your hat. Says the person who talks as if his personal fantasy is real. What we know is that the rings consistently have the seasonal patterns of annual rings and they they show growth at the same basic annual rate ring after ring. We also know that the same patterns grow in the Irish oaks and the German Oaks and their independent dendrochronologies show correlations with the Bristlecone pine tree rings.
?? No. We do not know any details about the older than 4500 tree rings of the pines from your posts. Did I miss something? Tell us about THOSE rings...details please! Ha. You appeal to blind unquestioning faith alone, and have used the disguise of science in doing so! You are now busted. You show a graph that lumps all the rings together. Let's see JUST the data for the pre 4500 'year' old rings!!!! Nothing else matters. What matters to you concerns me not in the slightest, although it might be instructive to see what other Christians think about the matter:
quote: Note that these sun cycles are in addition to the 11 year cycle. Looks like they disagree with you and your opinion of what history and the bible indicate. And I have suggested that you contact the authors of the peer reviewed scientific papers to address your specific questions. There is both the Intel group and the University of Arizona, among others. Curiously I have been in contact with some of the dendrochronologists, and they were helpful in providing additional information that I have included in the thread. They were happy to reply.
Great, so let's see the C14 info for the rings pre 4500!! Its in the graph.
The link I posted suggests that most C14 details in trees are from the more recent times ( ..to ..several hundred years BC) I could not find any link in your posts.
We have no idea HOW C14 was 'gotten' in the former nature. Once again you seek to impose current nature realities onto the unknown nature in the past...for no apparent reason. You have not explained any alternative. Just saying it happened differently is not an explanation. You have not provided any evidence of a different nature, and no reason to think it was significantly different.
No one says that several hundred rings from both nearby dead trees, and the innermost core of living trees are from the same time!! Canard. Strawman. Fast growing trees with hundreds of rings could, however represent decades or a century...etc! Therefore, the rings from the so called 5400BC in my link could represent trees mere decades before the time of the early bristlecone pines! In other words the actual dates for the so called 5400BC rings could be closer to 4500 years. As for false/missing rings, please do not tell us what former nature trees would do! How would you know? Your on trick religious pony is to attribute current nature features to the old trees by faith!! Your understanding of dendrochronology is pathetically vapid and any comments you make based on are likewise pathetically vapid. Your mental wanderings are not evidence that things were different.
You cannot convert anything because of annual rings!! (unless there was annual rings). Your lack of understanding trully seems to inhibit your ability to understand what is posted.
quote: Aon represents the level of C14 for 1950 in organic samples that obtained carbon from the atmosphere. As you can see the conversion to a "c14 age" is a purely mathematical process. This means we can take reported C14 conventional age and convert it back to the level of C14 found in the sample.
Now...if you want to post actual content of actual rings pre 4500 let's see the data! How would we accept that your graph looked at all rings, rather than some sort of averaging scheme? Let's see the goods. What was measured was shown in the graph. There are other graphs that extend the calibration of C14 data to ~50,000 years ago (see (Message 5):
quote: Now you have more correlations to explain, and you haven't even tackled the previous correlations in any adequate way.
Two points. 1) Let's see the markers for the pre 4500 year rings then!! 2) Remember that any patterns in trees grown in the former state do not equal patterns in this nature. What grows in a summer here, for example, might have grown in the cool of the day there for all we know. Lurkers Notice that he did not even address the evidence about a historically unprecedented spike in C14 levels in the days of the bristlecone pin tree rings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha. Hoo ha. I expect the lurkers are laughing as well ... but at you and your inadequate explanations of the correlations and your clutching desperately to little tid-bits of information rather than the whole set of evidence for old age. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
..
Edited by RAZD, : double postby 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If DNA is claimed, ... This is off topic on this thread. Feel free to spread your ignorance on DNA on a new thread. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You 'extend' the C14 and all other things only in your beliefs. In reality nothing about the slow tree rings growth along with the current nature functions of C14 can be extended anywhere, anytime, anyhow..beyond where this nature has existed. The question is how long ago you can prove it did exist as YOU claim. ..Not how many foolish ways you can apply your beliefs to various evidences so that they appear to your made up little religious mind to all be correlated!!!!!! So you still can't explain the correlations, and instead post twaddle. Predictable. You're in an axe fight and you don't even know what an axe is.
... your made up little religious mind to all be correlated!!!!!! ... When you start dealing with the reality of the correlations let me know. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Couldn't even be bothered to address the issues that defeated you eh? Your loss. More evidence that you live in a fantasy world. You have not made a single challenging post, just wasted band-width. If anything, the correlations have defeated your argument from fantasy. You haven't gotten past Message 2 on this thread. You may be interested in the updated version that has more details, The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 8 quote: You ask for a tiny tid-bits of rather irrelevant information, something that has no bearing on the correlations, and you think you have struck gold. That the tid-bits are in the data files seems irrelevant to you. Sad. But you forget the correlations are the issue, not the little tid-bits of rather irrelevant information. As such you serve as a shining example of how intellectually corrupt creationism is in dealing with the evidence. You aren't even rising to the level of some other creationists that have actually taken the time to learn what they are talking about. You just blather nonsense. Comments like this just give me an opportunity to show you what you are up against. This is from Message 1:
quote: Pretending there is a "former nature" without any evidence of any change in nature is just fantasy twaddle. The tid-bits of information you ask for (where is the ring for 4,500 years ago) are not any kind of critique of the Bristlecone pine chronology, because we know it is there, It is in the sections of the Prometheus tree. It doesn't need to be pointed out just for your benefit. Because that section is only one part of the Bristlecone pine chronology that has been validated six ways from sunday by teams of scientist, who -- shockingly -- all fail to notice the evidence of any change in nature. The tree rings also correlate with marine varves:
quote: You have not even begun to tackle the numerous correlations in this thread. Meanwhile you are roaming around an axe match canvas mat (without and axe) looking at tid-bits and claiming that we can't tell if the stains are actually bloodstains from previous fighters ... because that was a former fight, ... even though blood analysis says it is human blood. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Excellent...so we can scratch off DNA claims from your so called correlation pile. It isn't part of the correlations for age measurement systems and never was, so it wasn't on the list to be scratched off. Your false claim(s) can be discussed on other threads. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Look, you post some moronic graph of C14 levels supposed into the far past, ... That correlates with other chronologies based on their results for age and C14 levels. Calling it moronic does not refute the actual evidence as depicted in the graph.
rather than focus on the pine tree rings you cited...you know, the ones pre 4500 that you have no pics/details on? Again, I refer you to the papers cited and the authors of those papers for specific details that are immaterial to the overall data showing the chronological pattern and the correlations. You pick an arbitrary date, with no specific value, as if somehow it is different from the rest of the dates. What's the point? Your nit-picking on details doesn't explain the correlations.
The pine trees that saw an unprecedented spike, unseen in all history for the C14 levels back near the time I place the nature change! And yet you haven't produced any evidence of this claimed "unprecedented spike" ... you claimed a link but it was not to be found. There are many spikes, many different sizes, due to the variation in atmospheric C14, which is tied to the solar clock of sunspot activity. Your purported spike does not appear in any of these graphs at 4500 years ago (2500 BCE or 4500 BP):
These graphs all show the basic correlation between C14 and dendrochronological calendar age. There is no remarkable spike at your arbitrarily chosen date. Perhaps you are deceiving yourself again. That happens when you don't look at all the evidence.
... near the time I place the nature change! There is no evidence of any change in nature found anywhere on earth or the universe, that is just you deceiving yourself. Nobody is buying your fantasy, because the evidence is against it. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Faith based dates based solely on the unsupportable belief that nature was the same (so they attribute years to the rings). Only IF there was a same nature in the past would we be able to do this. This does not show nature was the same! This is built squarely on the belief it was. Unless you prove it was, the dates lose all meaning beyond where we know our current nature/state existed. Correction: the very same identical baseless belief in a same nature past was used also. I use older rings than the live trees also. However, I do not use them as if they were slow grown present nature rings from the dead trees. It was those rings that showed the astounding absolutely unprecedented spike in C14 levels in a short period!!!!!!! Your attempts to chart the rings as if they represent yearly cycle, present nature growth are truly pathetic religion. You are getting worse than Mr, Bean. The principle of what nature trees grew in must be addressed. Instead you take your comedy act to another continent, and run the same show. Same thing with varves, and the unknown rapid deposition of the former nature...you try to insist it had to have been laid down in this nature...for no apparent reason. Same thing fr coral growth and ice. Religion. Religion. Religion. Once again you try to use dead trees added with the rings of the living tree and say they all represent present nature growth for no reason! Then you have no pics of the rings in the pine tree older than 4500! No data on the specific rings either! Once you provide some objective empirical evidence for any change of nature, what that change was, when it occurred and what was affected, your comments based on this fantasy are worthless drivel.
Excuse me???!!! You want to claim that when YOU bring up tree rings and dates from them, that it is irrelevant info to look at the actual old rings and data from them, from the specific time in question?? What I have provided is the documentation for the ages of all the tree rings and their respective ages forming an accurate and precise dendrochronology. The specific location in a picture of one specific ring is irrelevant to the total set of data consistently showing age measured by annual rings. This data is published in scientific oeer reviewed journals that are accessible by the public (see references given), and thus any inquiry into any single ring should be taken up with the authors of these papers, or by reading them. The information is there, documented (by several sources), peer reviewed (several times) and available. Now if you want to propose a correlation for that date with evidence from your personal fantasy chronology, then provide the objective empirical evidence for that date and how you developed your chronology. Otherwise you comment is pointless: it doesn't address the accuracy and precision of the dendrochronology, and it doesn't explain 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What is in question, is not how patterns of C14 exist in ancient tree rings and other sources. The ehing that is off kilter here is that you were asked about specific tree rings (pre 4500 year old rings) in a certain tree, and the response involved a chart that had nothing to do with that. Instead it charted some patterns supposed going far far back in time. Message 1138: You were asked about the HUNDREDS of rings on the specific tree that was living that YOU made specific claims about actually! Not 'one' ring'! Cut the smoke and mirrors and admit the astounding fail. The problem is that I do not need to have pictures of every ring on every one of the samples used. Why? because they are documented multifold times and in not one instance has there been any question about them being annual rings. I've shown you pictures with "HUNDREDS of rings on the specific tree" and noted that there are other sources for your enquiry. Those sources are all I need to show correlation between actual measured C14 levels and tree ring age. Those diagrams (like this one):
show measured amount of C14 converted in raw C14 age by a mathematical formula (Libby). There is no need to show any one ring along the bottom, because they are documented in the studies -- the information is there, OR you can contact the authors for it. I don't need pictures of specific rings to show the correlation.
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. The correlations are the issue, not specific tidbits of data -- something you are still avoiding. Seems like while I was away you ran off at the mouth with a bunch of totally irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with correlations. Typical creationist ploy -- try to change the topic when you can't deal with the correlations.
I just clicked on the link and it works fine! Just a moment... I'll get to this when I have more time, but I'll say this: I don't think it says what you seem to think it says. 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 1404 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 1404 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi RAZD et al. I have just read AIG's article by Snelling on the Hawaiian-Emperor chain and admit to being somewhat gobsmacked. He acknowledges that the radiometric dates for the seamounts are what you would expect for the rate of current movement, but blandly says the rate of movement, RM decay, and volcanic activity, all changed in lock-step to produce this result. The wilful blindness is breath-taking. Well, it is AIG... and Snelling ... so one would expect misleading information and misinformation. What he is essentially saying is the evidence shows these things happening concurrently (in lockstep), which is what one would expect based on current knowledge. This is a consistent problem creationists have when trying to alter reality to fit into a young earth scenario -- explaining why these correlations exist. 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thank you for confirming what I posted in Message 1215.
Let's review. You offered us some tattered/reconstructed parchment written by some unknown on the back of an actual ancient scroll, that has missing kings, many unknown kings, and a plethora of spook kings! Nope, I presented information from the accepted absolute Egyptian Chronology to date the artifacts.
quote: As I said, mocking the chronology does not refute the chronology nor does it address the correlation.
... you try to use tree ring chronology that assumes fast present nature tree growth to date those kings! ... Nope, I presented information from the scientifically accepted absolute (oak) tree-ring chronology that also dated the artifacts to the same time period (or slightly older within the margins of error), which you agree with:
I do not find it strange in any way that furniture from trees would contain the same pattern of C14 as trees from the time would!? ... Of course the wood in the artifacts could have come from older stock lumber before it was used to build furniture, but that just make the matching dates stronger. This also means that any concept involving fast tree ring growth has to explain how the furniture maker picked the exact to-the-minute sample of wood to make the artifact in order to make the correlation ...
... The only issue is how C14 fit in nature and what it did, where it used to come from...etc etc..in other words C14 only has meaning in a nature we know! Nope, the only issue is the correlation between independently determined chronologies (which is evidence of a consistent nature). Trees "breath" in CO2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere contains isotopes of carbon, including Carbon-14, and use it to build molecules like Cellulose, (C6H10O5)n. Chemical molecules are blind to the isotopes involved, so the proportions of the different isotopes in the cellulose matches to proportions of the isotopes in the atmosphere at the time the molecules are assembled. After this occurs there is no known mechanism to change those proportions ... except decay. This means (as you have agreed) that two samples with the same age would have the same levels of C-14 in the cellulose. This means that an artifact's age can be determined by matching the actual factual measured decayed level of C-14 to the actual factual measured level of C-14 in the dendrochronology -- within the margin of error in measurement and within the margin of error caused by the wiggle pattern of atmospheric variation in C-14 content (from year to year caused by solar cycles, including the 11-year cycle). You have not explained how the pattern of C-14 in the tree rings can exist by any means other than as a record of annual variations in atmospheric C-14 during original ring growth. Multiple rings per day would have the same C-14 unless you can show a mechanism to alter this by the hour, all around the world at the same time. So you still have not explained the correlation, which demonstrates accuracy and precision in the data, regardless of how weak you think the information is to determine the dates. Wrong on all counts, but fascinating consistency in ignorance maintained in spite of contrary evidence. You keep misrepresenting what I post, and that means you don't understand it or you just don't care about being wrong or that you do it intentionally (troll behavior). You keep being a perfect example of what is wrong with creationist arguments and behavior. As I said in Message 1215: "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." The correlations win again. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024