|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thank you again for proving my point that you can't deal with the correlations, as this once again confirms the age of the earth being old old old is still hasn't been refuted.
Your religious correlation/circular reasoning is busted again. Thank you for confirming what I posted in Message 1215 and again in Message 1226, that creationists are incapable of dealing with the correlations, explaining the details with something other than fantasy, denial and false statements. You have not demonstrated circular reasoning at all (do you even know what it is?). Curiously just making claims proves nothing.
... What you have failed to do is show this nature existed. Instead you proceed as if it did blindly. Nope. YOU have failed to show even a tid-bit of evidence that there ever was any other nature, and instead blindly assert it with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Creationist "science" at it's best. When you assert something like a different nature, the onus is on you to show that there ever was a different nature, and to support that with objective empirical evidence. All you do is ride in on your one-trick pony and dump a load of shinola assertions that is pure fantasy without a fact to be found. The void sucks your argument away because you failed at the first, failed again every post since, and continue to fail to provide contrary evidence. Without contrary evidence, ALL the evidence known shows natural processes proceeding naturally into the past as far back as we can test and verify. There is no known point at which it changes. You have shown no evidence to think otherwise. AND you have verified this by your failing to even attempt to explain the correlations, even the most basic correlations. The correlations win again. 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
When I show that science doesn't know what nature existed ... When did you do that? Did you show them pigs fly too? What journal is it published in? Making a statement is not showing, it is telling an anecdote, a fiction, a fable. It can have facts -- "that's a chair" -- for instance, but that doesn't make the whole statement factual.
... the onus is on them to prove the one they claim existed. Obviously. Nope. The onus is on you to prove your claim, because the sciences have already provided their work in research paper that have been peer-reviewed in scientific journals and cross-checked by alternate systems. Their conclusions are accepted as the best knowledge we have to understand the universe ... subject to change if anomalous information is discovered. When anomalous information is discovered it is the onus of the person/s making the discovery to explain it, publish it and have it peer reviewed -- not the rest of the science community to prove their science all over again. That would be you. But you're all hat, riding in on your one-trick pony statement without a single fact to back you up, and -- sadly for you once again -- you still have not explained the correlations. See, this is part of science and "new ideas/concept" as well, that the new paradigm has to explain all the existing information/evidence, and incorporate the new anomalous information into a new paradigm with a fuller explanation. Relativity vs Newton. The person that this job falls on is the promoter of the new paradigm -- so the onus is on your slack shoulders. Failure to tackle the correlations means that you are failing the test of this thread, that your paradigm is failing the test of this thread, and that because of that failure, demonstrating that you do not have a better explanation, and demonstrating that your paradigm is a puff of smoke with no basis on facts and no usefulness in the world. So prattle on if you want. But you lose when ever you provide no explanation for the correlations. That's 221 posts and 221 losses on this thread so far.
When I show ... Indeed, when you show something other than bald unsupported assertions you will make a start. Possibly ... but it 's about time you started providing more than simple fantasy. Enjoy
Message 1244: To declare the recorded growth rates of tree in the ancient world 'fake' you would need some proof that the current nature existed then. ... You have that mixed up. Nobody here is claiming the tree rings are "fake" here but you, so you need some proof that the current nature did not exist then, and describe that previous nature and point out when it changed, how it changed and how that affected all the dating techniques in such a perfect manner that the correlations still occurred. You are woefully behind in that work ... you still haven't explained a single correlation, and so, still losing the debate. Still demonstrating that creationism is a total failure at proving the earth is young. 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That shows that you can't deal with the issue let alone show that the nature you claim existed did exist! You can't show us anything in any of those silly religious rags/peer reviewed papers that even addresses what nature existed, can you? You all engage in a frenzy of activity using the belief nature was the same, as if in a contest as to who can make up the most insane lies that go furthest against God and the creation of God! Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on! You declared, if I recall or some other poster did, that the bible record of fast growing trees was fake. The reason obviously that this was done is because they believe that the nature we see today also existed then. Why? Irrelevant. Another total failure to deal with the correlations. Your loss. Again.
Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on! Nope. You need to show why they still correlate when they are derived from different fact based methods. You have no idea what you are up against. You don't know what evidence is. Think of two roads crossing at the correlation point. If you change one road, you need to change the other road in a way that will maintain that intersection. Now add a third road that intersects the other two ... you need to change it as well ... etc etc etc. If you change them all together the same way, then you haven't changed the nature of their intersections/interactions and the original "map" still applies. The correlations win because you cannot explain them with your simplistic lame made up fantasies, because they would need to change in different ways to produce similar results. Enjoy This might help:
Cor•re•la•tion(4)
[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] noun
Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more accurate or precise than concordance. 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is no evidence of a change in nature, no start point, no measure of change, nothing. This is no explanation for the correlations. The Correlations win again. Your biggest problem is that you have castrated what you accept as reasonable argument to such a degree that you can't say anything about it. No correlations should exist -- evidence that you are wrong -- as everything should be jumbled, and you cannot trust any narrative that comes from outside your bubble, not one ... including Christian creation. One trick pony. 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I figure I would have to personally examine the tree rings very closely to arrive at a meaningful theory. That would mean going to where the evidence is. Failing that your best option is:
You can start here: The Age of the Earth v3p1, message 7: Dendrochronology Basics and look at pictures like this one:
Prometheus section with over 4800 annual rings. Also see Message 1010 and Message 1070 for more pictures and information. 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Cool stuff.
Now if we can tie the tree rings to the climate patterns in the varve and ice layers ... then maybe we could introduce lines of magnetic change in the sea bed to the calculations of 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 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
[ /quote] has an extra space in it.
Error - Cookies Turned Off -- needs to be addressed by Percy
SubdailyScale Chemical Variability in a Torreites Sanchezi Rudist Shell: Implications for Rudist Paleobiology and the Cretaceous DayNight Cycle quote: The 13C and 18O records can be compared to ice cores where they overlap in time. They don't say how the geological age is determined. This is similar to the Talking Coral Heads, providing further consilience with the age dating methods. The Campanian (83.6 0.5 to 72.1 0.2 Ma) is an late part of the Cretaceous era
quote: So this also has implications for climate change issues -- CO2 levels and ocean depths. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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