Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 5:41 PM
210 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 204 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,007 Year: 16,830/29,783 Month: 818/1,956 Week: 321/331 Day: 49/50 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6566
67
6869
...
72Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 991 of 1079 (842765)
11-08-2018 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by edge
11-04-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
No. You may not claim any connection at all to reality. Sorry. You are connected to fables and religion is disguise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by edge, posted 11-04-2018 2:07 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 2:10 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 992 of 1079 (842766)
11-08-2018 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 988 by edge
11-04-2018 2:03 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Yes, if trees grew in weeks, it is logical that the many many rings in a tree would represent parts of a day. How? Well, we would not look at this nature to learn that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by edge, posted 11-04-2018 2:03 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 2:06 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 993 of 1079 (842767)
11-08-2018 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 987 by RAZD
11-04-2018 1:25 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
quote:
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 doesn't explain the tree rings with summer/winter seasonal portions of each ring (night/day is not enough) that nobody noticed in any documents or myths,
it doesn't help you explain the correlation with the Egyptian chronology,
it doesn't help you explain the C14 content in each ring differing from the ring before and after,
it doesn't help you explain the same C14 content in trees the other side of the earth from the Bristlecone pines - the oaks in Germany and Ireland - for the same age ring when you are mixing the air up every 4 minutes it takes you to grow enough rings, and
it doesn't help you explain the 11 year solar sun-spot cycle peaks in the C14 data.


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.

By the way, please sow close ups of the rings pre 4500 level, and be sure to show the claimed 11 year cycle in THOSE rings!!!!!

quote:

... 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.

To pretend we would or should expect empirical evidence of a long passed history is dishonest. You have none to say it is or is not true.

That is not science, that is absolute flaming ignorance.

quote:

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:

Not in detail and we can see nothing of the rings pre 4500...just some silly stump!
How would we know what the supposed 344 extra rings contain exactly? You claim every eleven rings in that 344 rings have some spike from the sun?? Let's see the proof?

quote:

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.
So now you only claim 4700 which is about 200 rings more than the 4500!! No details of these 200 rings...the only ones that matter in this discussion...are given. Funny, that. What are you trying to pull?
quote:

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.
Smoke and mirrors, since the dead trees dendrochronology uses would have been also grown in the former nature if they were older than 4500 rings!
quote:

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.
Sad excuse for offering NO details on the ONLY rings that matter here!

The mere fact that there were a few hundred rings in trees already when the nature change happened is O problem at all for me. Nor does it help you since you have no specs no details on the rings that matter.

quote:

And this hand-waving explains nothing. It doesn't explain the variations recorded in the rings.

The ONLY variations that matter are the ones in the rings older than 4500 'years'. Tell us about these variations..you know in the rings you can provide no details about??

quote:

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.
Cherry picking some list with spirits and that can only be dated by radioactive methods is a joke.
quote:

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.
NO need to exclude the few hundred rings above the 4500. There IS a need to show up close details of these rings IF you (as you do) claim specific things about THESE rings.
quote:

That doesn't look like a taper to me. I also note that the oldest is 120 years, an age which is possible today.
So are the years of the reign of kings or their lif span? If it is the reign, then we would take 120 years and add a possibly long childhood and old age!!! Look at Trump, how many years will he 'reign' compared to his whole life?!

Also, it is no use grasping at some Guinness book of records to find oldest living people. The king lists are of kings...not the oldest record breaking life span holders!

quote:

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.
My point exactly...THIS nature does not allow such old ages!! The evidence mounts!

quote:

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.

I agree. My feeling was that it probably was some post nature change release of old flood water dams or some such.
quote:

Not what I said. What we have are some tombs, from them we know that the kings inside were real.

What is the oldest tomb you have and how is it dated!?
Just because there are some tombs means nothing. Of course some of the kings are real.

Hoo Ha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2018 1:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2018 7:27 AM creation has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4419
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 994 of 1079 (842768)
11-08-2018 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 992 by creation
11-08-2018 12:28 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Yes, if trees grew in weeks, ...

If ... ?

Sure.

And if your fantasies were real, then virtually anything could happen. Why not?

And, be honest, you don't know anything about this alternate reality, do you? It's more fun that way, right?

it is logical that the many many rings in a tree would represent parts of a day.

Sure! It could be thousands of rings per day!

That would be 'logical'. How many do you want?

How? Well, we would not look at this nature to learn that.

True. That way, we could just make stuff up to fit into our mythology.

Why bother with the hassle of dealing with reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 12:28 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1000 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:22 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4419
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 995 of 1079 (842769)
11-08-2018 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 991 by creation
11-08-2018 12:27 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
No. You may not claim any connection at all to reality.

Actually, I can.

And it's a reality that actually exists!

Sorry.

I'm sure.

You've been spewing this nonsense for years now. It's a fine time to be sorry.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 12:27 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:20 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19666
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 996 of 1079 (842773)
11-08-2018 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 993 by creation
11-08-2018 12:54 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
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.

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 993 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 12:54 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 9:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1001 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4419
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 997 of 1079 (842781)
11-08-2018 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by RAZD
11-08-2018 7:27 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Let me know when you have real evidence.

Essentially, the 'previous state' argument enshrines ignorance.

It states that we don't (can't) know the past and, that being the case, we can make up whatever we want. Both of these statements are ludicrous premises.

And yet, this argument from ignorance appeals to some (or maybe it's just one).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2018 7:27 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:19 PM edge has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 998 of 1079 (842797)
11-08-2018 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 997 by edge
11-08-2018 9:52 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Ignorance is when you do not know what nature existed. No one cares what you believe or not about it. The fraud of calling your lack of knowing 'science' is exposed. Obviously you cannot prove your claimed nature in the far past on earth. You lose.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 9:52 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1002 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-08-2018 4:05 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 1008 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 9:15 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 999 of 1079 (842799)
11-08-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 995 by edge
11-08-2018 2:10 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
True you can claim connection to reality if you like. What you can't do is demonstrate such a claim.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 2:10 AM edge has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 1000 of 1079 (842800)
11-08-2018 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 994 by edge
11-08-2018 2:06 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
No comment from the peanut gallery needed as to how many rings some fast growing tree in some different past nature grew. Since the rings in question are only a few hundred, basically it is a moot question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 2:06 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by edge, posted 11-08-2018 9:18 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 1001 of 1079 (842801)
11-08-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 996 by RAZD
11-08-2018 7:27 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
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 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?

You offer a king list that is known and admitted to be no good for dating. 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. It seems you are here to insult God and the bible and history and make stuff up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2018 7:27 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1010 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2018 8:06 AM creation has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1002 of 1079 (842813)
11-08-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 998 by creation
11-08-2018 3:19 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
The fraud of calling your lack of knowing 'science' is exposed.

Yes, finally! You calling ignorance science is fraudulent. You calling science religion is ironic, showing you believe religion is the worst label you can call something.

Obviously you cannot prove your claimed nature in the far past on earth.

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims about "nature." Pure fiction, not even good enough for religion.

You lose.

Says the only person who believes your fictional imaginary fantasy.

Meanwhile, thousands of scientists are studying the Universe and discovering new things they didn't know yesterday. And guess what.....your fictional imaginary fantasy has absolutely no impact on human knowledge.

You do not matter. The sad part is, you are not even any good at religion, let alone science and knowledge. You are delusional.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:19 PM creation has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3467
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 1003 of 1079 (842822)
11-08-2018 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 990 by creation
11-08-2018 12:26 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
You have no tools or abilities or science to look into the time Noah lived. Science cannot comment either way.

Au contraire. There are many such tools, abilities and all of the actual philosophy of science used to analyse the thousands of facts left in the rocks and sediments that says this global flood that your religion seems so tenuously to cling for justification never happened. You just cannot afford to see it since with the actual evidence your fictitious flud-n-fall fail under the immense weight of reality.

We have the facts. We have the evidence. All of which you have to deny to maintain your fictitious myths.

You have nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 12:26 AM creation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 5:50 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1004 of 1079 (842823)
11-08-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1003 by AZPaul3
11-08-2018 5:42 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Oh there's SO much No Evidence for the Flood. All those strata and fossils all over the world. They don't stop being evidence for the Flood just because they've been commandeered to another purpose by evos.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1003 by AZPaul3, posted 11-08-2018 5:42 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1005 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-08-2018 6:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1006 by AZPaul3, posted 11-08-2018 6:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1007 by Taq, posted 11-08-2018 6:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 1005 of 1079 (842826)
11-08-2018 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Faith
11-08-2018 5:50 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Oh there's SO much No Evidence for the Flood.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

All those strata and fossils all over the world.

Once people started doing systematic study of the strata and fossils all over the world it became clear that they are not the result of a single global flood or a single regional flood. In fact, clearly only a very small percentage of the fossils we have discovered show any evidence of dying in a flood.

The thousands of pieces of evidence that science can explain and that you cannot refute your whole fantasy. This evidence has been pointed out to you repeatedly and ignored by you in a bunch of threads here at EvC. You have never been able to successfully explain the myriad flaws in your fantasy that we have pointed out to you.

They don't stop being evidence for the Flood just because they've been commandeered to another purpose by evos.

They were never evidence for the flood. That was the single biggest mistake repeatedly made by creationists. It became obvious to the people who started systematically studying geology and paleontology more than 200 years ago that they could not have been deposited in a single flood and that they were not the results of short event floods.

We can see the kinds of evidence all sorts of floods and other events leave behind. These days many of these events are seen by inhabitants and rescue workers and later carefully studied by a wide range of interested scientists. We can see the way sediments are deposited and how animals look when they are embedded in the various deposits.

Scientist have also systematically studied erosion in many different conditions and none of those resemble your fantasies about how the Grand Canyon or any other erosional landform was created.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 5:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
6566
67
6869
...
72Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018