Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 1:56 PM
341 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,024 Year: 28,630/21,208 Month: 696/1,847 Week: 71/475 Day: 18/53 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4142
43
444546Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
starman
Inactive Member


Message 631 of 677 (823214)
11-07-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 629 by jar
11-07-2017 4:23 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Yes reactions happened at the sites. Why and when and how is the issue. Gong!

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by jar, posted 11-07-2017 4:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by jar, posted 11-07-2017 5:23 PM starman has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 632 of 677 (823216)
11-07-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by starman
11-07-2017 4:19 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
quote:
You can count the rings that exist and that gives you a minimum age for the tree.

Not true unless the rings all grew IN this nature! Gong.

quote:
You can also overlap the rings with the techniques of dendrochronology to extend the age of the grove back over 8,000 years ago.

Not unless all rings grew in this present state! Gong!

quote:
(fixed coding) As you have already been told there is a living tree that was measured at 5,065 years old in 2012.

False. Rings only equal years or seasons as long as the tree was growing in the present nature! You are spinning your wheels here, missing the whole point.

Which just means that all the dendrochronological evidence exists "IN this nature!" and that any different nature state in this time is a fantasy.

FAIL #16

quote:
There was an exact match of the climate patterns between the two chronologies for the 5,000 + period of overlap except for two instances when it was so cold year-round that the second chronology showed no ring and the original chronology showed very narrow rings.
Doesn't matter if the variations were within the day or week as they would have to be in the former nature.

Except that those rings are exactly similar to annual rings and entirely different from intermittent type rings.

But your problem is not just with inventing an imaginary system of magic ring growth that looks identical to annual growth rings ... but the changing levels of 14C within those rings somehow matches the levels of 14C in lake varves (Suigetsu) and marine varves (Cariaco) with layers of diatoms (Suigetsu) or foraminifera (Cariaco) alternating with layers of clay and fine silts -- material that does not settle fast.

Why do those 14C levels match for the same annual counted rings or layers?

In a way that exactly mimics what we expect to find if the "IN this nature!" were the case.

Dropping exponentially as the older layers/rings are tested.

quote:
What causes the appearance of old age if that is wrong -- how do you explain it.

Maybe write this down, you keep missing it...BECAUSE the rings were not all grown in this present state! ...

Congratulation, you've contradicted yourself and your "present state" now extends 36,000 years into the past.

With no discernible evidence of any previous type if nature, and now confirming the exponential decay of 14C and the validity of 14C dating.

... The onus is on you to show cause and to provide supporting evidence for your claimed same nature existing in the far past on earth. In this you have failed miserably.

Except ... once again, it's already done: that evidence is in this thread, and all you have to do is read it.

Fail @17

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:19 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 633 of 677 (823218)
11-07-2017 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by starman
11-07-2017 4:20 PM


Re: Oklo and Uranium Halos show an Old Earth
I read the Oklo fable many times and you can't support it. Give it up!

Fail #18 bald assertions like this are not an argument, all you have is your silly opinion.

As for your halo thing..I don't believe you. You would have posted the great proof or point in a sentence or two here by now. You got nothing.

Again there is a whole thread (Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?) dedicated to this and you are too scared to look at it.

There are 44 posts I have made on that thread, and only a person with no idea of the issue would think it could be condensed to "a sentence or two" ... Fail #19.

So far all you have posted are vapid opinions devoid of evidence and that don't even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis. At best it is poor science fiction written by someone ignorant of science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:20 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:32 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 634 of 677 (823219)
11-07-2017 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by starman
11-07-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
My assertion is that science does not know the state of the past on earth. You help prove that assertion is absolutely true. Thanks for that.

Still no evidence to substantiate that fantasy.

A moth fluttering around the flame of knowledge, trying desperately to put it out with your wing flappings.

Fail #20.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..lol


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:37 PM starman has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29749
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 635 of 677 (823228)
11-07-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by starman
11-07-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Yes reactions happened at the sites. Why and when and how is the issue. Gong!

No, the issue was your stupid claim that we had no evidence that the processes were the same in the past as they are now.

We have Oklo. We win and you remain a loser.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:37 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 641 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:34 PM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 636 of 677 (823277)
11-08-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by starman
11-06-2017 1:02 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

You have then no reason to doubt the different past recorded in history and Scripture are wrong...or right...or anything.


We know that the Bible is fiction because it doesn't match reality. There were no plants before sunlight. The Bible is just wrong about that, and about a thousand other things.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:02 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:38 PM ringo has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 637 of 677 (823283)
11-08-2017 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by starman
11-07-2017 4:20 PM


Starman fails again
As for your halo thing..I don't believe you. You would have posted the great proof or point in a sentence or two here by now. You got nothing.

Curiously I wrote a special post to summarize this just for you.

It's a little more than a couple of sentences.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:20 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 638 of 677 (823295)
11-08-2017 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by starman
11-07-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
My assertion is that science does not know the state of the past on earth.

It depends on your epistemological stance, I suppose.

Using the epistemological stance that science takes, scientists do indeed know things about the past on earth.

One could hypothesise some kind of Omphalism (a past where some abrupt change in the nature of reality results in a world that appears old, but actually its not as old as we think), but there is no reason to suppose that is true - there is no causal mechanism that can be identified that would result in a Omphalistic universe. It would require either a tremendously improbable coincidence of events or a stupendously deceptive and powerful agent that conspired to generate patterns that appear to be consistent with a certain past. Neither is evidenced. Any related hyperskepticism, quickly falls into madness. Where do you draw the line between the known and the unknown? How can you draw a line? How can you say you know anything once you start down this path?

quote:
Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches
—St. Ephrem the Syrian

What we can say is that if we suppose that the fundamental units of the universe work today as they did yesterday, and the day before etc., a consistent, coherent, useful understanding of the world and the universe forms. We can make reasoned inferences on the location of resources, the prevalence of certain elements, the future of our sun and other stars. They all tie together into a coherent understanding of the world and our existence. Omphalistic objections simply become...ahem...naval gazing exercises with no illumination, understanding or utility to be gained.

In science you say 'if this is true, it implies this other thing....let's check that other thing, hrm that other thing is so. This lends credibility to the hypothetical that started this. If that other thing is true AND if this addition idea is true, then that would suggest....' - this reasoning leads us to explanations. The reason y is the case, is because s,t,u,v,w and x result in y. s,t,u,v,w and x appear to be so due to observations a,b,c,d,e and f. It is always possible that some alternative hypothesis is actually the truth, but there comes a point when that possibility requires sufficiently unreasonable propositions that run counter to our observations and this, in the epistemologies that scientists use, means we can say 'we know'. We might be wrong. And one can always think of a variety of hypothetical possibilities which would result in us being wrong, but until observations suggest those hypothetical possibilities have any correspondence to reality - we can stick to using verb 'to know' for the sake of communication.

As with solipsistic objections, Omphalistic type objections are an obviously foolish way to proceed. As you also say:

We know lots of details from the last few hundred years

Since you opened the door to Omphalism I could just reductio ad absurdum you and say that we don't know any details from the last few hundred years due to Last Thursdayism.

quote:
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.
—Bertrand Russell

Either the verb 'to know' has some meaning and we can use it, or it does not. Your perspective, whether you realize it or not - renders the verb meaningless or at least useless. Science's perspective gives us a reasonable use for the verb.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:37 PM starman has not yet responded

    
starman
Inactive Member


Message 639 of 677 (823344)
11-09-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by RAZD
11-07-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
Rings that grew in hours look similar to ones that grow in this state in say a year. Not sure what you thought you should see? Spell it out? As for your imaginary 36,000 years, show us the basis for that date? Radioactive decay? Overlapping rings from the former nature..?? Be clear.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2017 4:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by Taq, posted 11-09-2017 12:35 PM starman has responded
 Message 644 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:36 PM starman has not yet responded
 Message 653 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2017 1:24 PM starman has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 640 of 677 (823345)
11-09-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 633 by RAZD
11-07-2017 5:01 PM


Re: Oklo and Uranium Halos show an Old Earth
No actual point on halos you can concisely post here eh? Let's face it, that is just another facet of your same nature in the past belief set. Different head...same monster. I have a one sword slays all, thankfully.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2017 5:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 654 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2017 1:27 PM starman has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 641 of 677 (823347)
11-09-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by jar
11-07-2017 5:23 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
I have Oklo. You have religion and fables about Oklo. Yu failed to prove a same nature in the past and you may NOT use one in models for the past. Evermore.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by jar, posted 11-07-2017 5:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by Taq, posted 11-09-2017 12:36 PM starman has not yet responded
 Message 650 by jar, posted 11-09-2017 12:43 PM starman has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 642 of 677 (823348)
11-09-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by RAZD
11-08-2017 3:51 PM


Re: Starman fails again
Maybe some poster will cite it so we can look at it one day. We wait.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2017 3:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 643 of 677 (823349)
11-09-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by starman
11-09-2017 12:30 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
starman writes:

Rings that grew in hours look similar to ones that grow in this state in say a year.

That is entirely made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:30 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:36 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 644 of 677 (823350)
11-09-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by starman
11-09-2017 12:30 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
Nice dance skirting issues. Now show us HOW science knows!

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:30 PM starman has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 645 of 677 (823351)
11-09-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by Taq
11-09-2017 12:35 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence.
What is made up is that the same nature existed where they grew slow like now. Prove it.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by Taq, posted 11-09-2017 12:35 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4142
43
444546Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017