Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 1:58 AM
198 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, ICANT, Tanypteryx (4 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,276 Year: 19,099/29,783 Month: 1,044/2,043 Week: 89/507 Day: 0/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
82838485Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1201 of 1269 (844102)
11-25-2018 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by creation
11-25-2018 3:16 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Some of the earmarks of the great flood of Noah were that all animals and people on earth, save those on the ark all died.

Oh good grief. That is not an earmark of a flood. That is just repeating what you fictional story says.

That qualifies as a great extinction if ever anything ever did!

It would if there was any evidence that it happened, but it turns out to be total fiction.

The water also came from space and below the earth and that is where science says iridium also comes from.

There is no evidence that that is anything other than your fantasy about a fictional flood in a fictional story in a fictional book. Iridium is not water soluble.

Interesting that you make up BS about science when you think it might support your fantasy and the rest of the time "it's religion." Your ignorance is showing.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:16 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1221 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 5:31 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1202 of 1269 (844103)
11-25-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1192 by creation
11-25-2018 3:18 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Yes. The interpretation that is wrong is that the iridium was from space object that caused the great extinction of the time.

In your fantasies. Where's your evidence?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:18 AM creation has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 1203 of 1269 (844105)
11-25-2018 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by creation
11-25-2018 3:19 AM


Re: Evidence of fountain of the deep
No. Not 'something'. But science foists itself on people as more than just beliefs. That is the sin.

Science is completely different from beliefs. Science is a method for determining the most accurate description of reality and the Universe.

That is the sin.

Ignorance is a sin.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:19 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 5:28 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1204 of 1269 (844106)
11-25-2018 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1194 by creation
11-25-2018 3:20 AM


Re: Iiridium layer during flood
You have failed to defend your religion. Don't try throwing stones at superior beliefs.

You have failed in your defense of your fantasy. All you have is fictional beliefs.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:20 AM creation has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11642
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 1205 of 1269 (844108)
11-25-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by creation
11-25-2018 3:16 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
creation writes:

Some of the earmarks of the great flood of Noah were that all animals and people on earth, save those on the ark all died. That qualifies as a great extinction if ever anything ever did! The water also came from space and below the earth and that is where science says iridium also comes from.

One of the points made in these forums that brings up questions in my mind is jars "bottleneck thesis"...
jar writes:

Here is the detailed description of the first argument (the genetic bottleneck).

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

and in Genesis 7:

quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

BUT...

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

Talk about a big RED flag.

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticist in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Year's Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

How is any creationist going to challenge that? (Apart from some magical explanation?)

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:16 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1216 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 5:08 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1206 of 1269 (844118)
11-25-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1198 by creation
11-25-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I could drive a mac truck through the gaping holes in your science/religion.

Considering that there is not such thing as a 'mac truck' that would either be incredibly easy in your fantasy or impossible in the real world.

So unless someone posts on topic here and something of substance, I guess I'll try to let the thread R.I.P. Ha.

Considering your failure to accomplish anything here, that might be a good idea.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1198 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:32 AM creation has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1207 of 1269 (844120)
11-25-2018 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1195 by creation
11-25-2018 3:22 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Using the word reality does not make you related. Sorry. Asking us to show you some conduit to the inner earth that existed thousands of years ago only, is awfully foolish.

And even more revealing when you can't do so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:22 AM creation has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1208 of 1269 (844122)
11-25-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1196 by creation
11-25-2018 3:23 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Let's look then if the KT layer involves any sediment!

Heh, heh ....

For those who are interested, that's what we've been doing all along.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1196 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:23 AM creation has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1209 of 1269 (844125)
11-25-2018 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by Capt Stormfield
11-24-2018 9:43 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I fear you have fallen into the trap of expecting the troll's words to represent something in the real world. That appears not to be the case. It appears that its use of language is more akin to Mark Twain's character Mr. Ballou, who used words for their resonance and grandeur rather than their meaning. Words, for this person, are more akin to a mantra, a drone, a soothing and repetitive collection of sounds. Kind of like really bad scat singing without the music. The lack of connection to reality is of no concern.

Oh, not much fear of that. We've been going round and round on this "alternate states argument ' for years now. It never changes. I post more for other the audience to read than for the individual.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-24-2018 9:43 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1212 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-25-2018 6:40 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1210 of 1269 (844144)
11-25-2018 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1137 by creation
11-21-2018 2:11 PM


C14 Excursion of 5480 BC ... does not answer/explain the correlations.
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:
Large 14C excursion in 5480 BC indicates an abnormal sun in the mid-Holocene

... Here, we report the result of 14C measurements using the bristlecone pine tree rings for the period from 5490 BC to 5411 BC with 1- to 2-y resolution, and a finding of an extraordinarily large 14C increase (20‰) from 5481 BC to 5471 BC (the 5480 BC event). The 14C increase rate of this event is much larger than that of the normal grand solar minima. ...

... The 14C contents in tree rings are normally affected by the solar magnetic activities and the geomagnetic activities, which modulate the GCR flux to Earth (2). There is an excellent tree ring record of 14C data in the international radiocarbon calibration curve IntCal (3). ...

... Previously, it was considered that annual variations of 14C contents do not change rapidly because the original signal is diluted and attenuated by the carbon cycle (4). Although most of annual 14C data show a gradual variation, there are some periods that show significant and rapid annual changes. The AD 775 and AD 994 (or AD 993) events are two examples of large changes, which occur at annual resolution (6, 7). ...

... If such annual changes occurred in the past, it is possible that such events would be manifest in the IntCal data, because a large change in 1 y to 2 y would appear in the averaged 5- to 10-y data. As a result, we have identified 15 intervals where increase rates are ≥0.3 ‰/y (using min−max values) in the IntCal13 data (3) for the Holocene (last 12,000 y) (15). The 775 event is one of these 15 intervals; the increase rate is 0.4 (‰/year). We also have the annual 14C data for five other intervals, AD 1820 (6) (SI Text, Annual Rapid Change in 14C Records and Fig. S1). 4680 BC, 4440 BC, 4030 BC, and 2455 BC (15), but they do not show the annual rapid changes. The 5460 BC peak from 5490 BC to 5460 BC has one of the largest increase rates (0.51‰/y) in the Holocene. We selected the period for our annual measurement for interval 5490–5411 BC to investigate the structure of the 14C signal around 5460 BC.

Image of the bristlecone pine specimen (1971#059) used for our
study. This wood was collected in 1971 at Methuselah Walk site
(37.3794°N, 118.1654°W) and archived at Laboratory of Tree-Ring
Research, University of Arizona (32). We used the currently-accepted
bristlecone pine chronology to date this specimen. We note that LaMarche
and Harlan (34) speculated on the existence of a two-year dating offset
prior to 2140 BC in the Campito Mountain chronology relative to the
Methuselah Walk record. Although the conclusive resolution of this
question will require a reevaluation of the original material, the
direction of this reevaluation does not affect any of the conclusions
related to the rate and magnitude of shifts in 14C.

Discussion

We compared the annual 5480 BC event with other grand solar minima, that is the Maunder, the Spφrer, the Oort, the AD seventh century, and the fourth century BC grand solar minima, where we have annual resolution 14C data (5, 20⇓–22). Fig. 2 shows a comparison between our combined datasets and other grand solar minima (more details on the grand solar minima are provided in Table S2). On average, the increase rate of the other five grand solar minima is about 0.3‰/y. Against the normal grand solar minima, the increase rate of the 5480 BC event is 2‰/y. Although the total 14C increment of the 5480 BC event is almost equal to the other minima (∼20‰), the 5480 BC event increases much faster than the others.

Comparison of the 5480 BC event with other grand solar minima (6, 20⇓–22).
The origin of the coordinates corresponds to the shifted data point of the
first year of each grand solar minima (18), and the 5481 BC data point shown
in Fig. 1. Further information about the grand solar minima is provided in Table 2.

The structure of the 5480 BC event indicates a rapid increase in 14C after 5470 BC followed by a gradual plateau-like increase for the next 15 y and then a gradual decay. Although the initial increase in 14C for this event is different from the behavior in a normal grand solar minima, the time scale of the plateau and the following decay is consistent with the Maunder Minimum (here we have assumed the Maunder Minimum is a standard variation of a grand solar minimum; Fig. S6). Therefore, if our event is explained only by a grand solar minimum, this means the solar activity rapidly decreased to an extremely low level, and then the solar activity became gradually higher, in a similar way to other grand solar minima.

Annual Rapid Change in 14C Records

There are few examples of an extremely rapid increase rate of 14C, except in the two annual cosmic ray events at AD 774–775 and AD 993–994. However, some data in the beginning of the Dalton minimum show also a large increase rate, as can be seem in the annual 14C dataset of Stuiver et al. (5), i.e., 9.2‰ increase from AD 1796 to AD 1800 and 7.6‰ increase from AD 1808 to AD 1810 (increase rates for these periods are comparable to that of the 5480 BC event). We have also measured this interval using a Japanese cedar sample. However, we did not observe such a rapid increase in the cedar record. Fig. S1 shows a comparison of annual 14C datasets [our result, Stuiver et al. (5), and McCormac et al. (33)] during the beginning of the Dalton Minimum.


My take-away from the article on the 5480 BC event:

  1. Finding the largest excursion in a period of time is like finding the hottest day in July -- you know there will be one, and you know it will be the hottest -- by definition.
  2. Like the hottest day data, I would expect several times that came close: they found 15 other excursions with increase rates over ≥0.3 ‰/y.
  3. The increase C14 rate is also the fastest seen to date.
  4. Several were at or near 0.4 (‰/year).
  5. The Maunder excursion (AD 1640–1720) and the Spoerer excursion ((1450–1540) peaks were as large or larger, in "Corrected Δ14C (‰)

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, : .


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 1137 by creation, posted 11-21-2018 2:11 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1211 of 1269 (844146)
11-25-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1198 by creation
11-25-2018 3:32 AM


Correlations still winning -- they haven't even been addressed.
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, : .


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 1198 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:32 AM creation has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 398
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 1212 of 1269 (844151)
11-25-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1209 by edge
11-25-2018 1:53 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Well that's it exactly. The troll is just the bug on the stickpin for the students to examine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1209 by edge, posted 11-25-2018 1:53 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 1213 of 1269 (844155)
11-26-2018 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1177 by creation
11-24-2018 3:33 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
From your quote:

"The formation mechanisms of the chromitite seams in the Bushveld Igneous Complex are highly debated: numerous mechanisms have been proposed."

Igneous Complex. Their's no doubt that the Bushveld is an Igneous Complex.

Not deposited by magic fluddies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1177 by creation, posted 11-24-2018 3:33 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by edge, posted 11-26-2018 11:36 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 1219 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 5:26 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 1214 of 1269 (844176)
11-26-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1213 by Pressie
11-26-2018 5:57 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Igneous Complex. Their's no doubt that the Bushveld is an Igneous Complex.

Not deposited by magic fluddies.


You don't get it.

This is easy: In the previous state, you could go fishing in lava lakes and catch Cambrian trout.

I just love doing YEC science!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by Pressie, posted 11-26-2018 5:57 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1215 of 1269 (844247)
11-27-2018 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1198 by creation
11-25-2018 3:32 AM


Funny cause and effect concept
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, : .


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 1198 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:32 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1217 by Pollux, posted 11-27-2018 5:10 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 1218 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 5:23 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
82838485Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018