Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 9:53 PM
445 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,959 Year: 6,565/21,208 Month: 2,326/2,634 Week: 514/572 Day: 61/70 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 76 of 90 (409048)
07-07-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
07-05-2007 9:57 PM


Re: All you have are delusions of reality or a reality of delusion
quote:
You begin to see the hole you have dug yourself, but it is not science that lies to your belief. Reasonable people find it easy to separate out fact from fantasy, and these people will always come to the same conclusion in the end, based on the facts. One cannot base a testable hypothesis on fable and fantasy - and thus these are quickly ruled out when working in science.

Where reason is defined as belief in the myth of a same state past. The problem is, they have no facts for that.

quote:
But we are also talking about the evidence, not the science that makes the predictions -- the evidence that shows (1) light from cobalt-67 by the light spectrum
? 67? Do you mean 57?

quote:
(2) decay of cobalt-56 according to 77 day half-life,

Except that when it fades faster than required in that scenario, all you do is sprinkle stardust on it!!

quote:
(3) neutrinos that came from SN1987A before the light,

So?? Why would they not move at about the same speed as light??

quote:
(4) gamma rays with precisely the energy seen on earth from cobalt-56 decay. These observations are not assumptions, they are facts.

"Assuming that all of the high-energy photons originate from 56Co decay, the escaping photon intensities at various energies are related by the characteristics of the scattering medium and the physics of the scattering processes. Considering only these factors, we conclude that the total mass of 56Co implied by the light curve is not uniformly shielded by a thick envelope. Extensive 'mixing' of 56Co (initially 56Ni) and other heavy elements through the supernova envelope might explain the observations. It is likely that a small fraction of the 56Co mass implied by the light curve has been [b]removed by some mechanism[//b] to nearly thin regions."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v332/n6164/abs/332516a0.html

Sorry, but, so fat we really do not have a clear case. Something removed what we assume to be something, and it might be explained by extensive mixing, and stardust, and good thoughts, all PO.

First it needs to be demonstrated that it really has to be PO decay. If you get that far, so what?? One could then envision how the PO event simply got quickened here!! Let's face it, a different universe is absolutely able to meet all evidence as much as the same past myth can.

quote:

No, for your belief to be true the universe is made of lies, and it was created that way.

The temporary state is no lie. Thinking is was all there was, and will be all there will is where you got muddled up thinking a lie was involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2007 9:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 3:18 PM simple has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 77 of 90 (409090)
07-07-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by simple
07-04-2007 1:18 AM


Your God-of-Lies against the facts again
Fine. I need no break with trees that grew in a week.

You have yet to establish any valid basis for assuming whole trees could grow in just one week. Talk about blind unsupported assumptions.

This still fails to explain tree rings (caused by growth at different rates due to seasons - noted in Message 8 and still not dealt with) and 14C/12C values being different in the different rings. This also does not explain the shape and form of the Bristlecone Pine trunks and growth patterns:

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/growth.html

quote:
Spring comes to the bristlecone pines in early May with the melting of snow and higher temperatures. Each year the tree increases in girth only 1/100th of an inch, often less, and new cones and twigs are formed. In this subalpine zone there are only three warm summer months, often only 6 weeks, to produce growth and reserves for overwintering. All of this must be accomplished on a mere 10" (25.4cm) precipitation. During cool summers, the trees live on energy produced that summer and grow on the reserves stored from the previous year. To live so long under such conditions, the bristlecone has established several strategies.

Another strategy for surviving is the gradual dieback of bark and the tissue that conducts water (xylem) when the tree is damaged because of fire, lightning, drought or damaging storms. This reduction of tissue that the crown has to supply with nutrients, balances the effect of any damage sustained. The surviving parts remain quite healthy. As an example, "Pine Alpha" at over 4000 years, is nearly four feet in diameter, yet has only a ten inch strip of living bark to support it.


This means that the mature trees only grow on one side, the side sheltered from the major (winter) storms by the rest of the trunk, and leaving bare wood on the exposed side to create their characteristic appearance, bare wood that can erode away with each storm and winter season (freeze thaw cycles). Here is an example of a cross-section cut from a Bristlecone Pine:

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplot/applications.htm

quote:

Click to enlarge

Photo provided by C.D. Allen and H.D. Grissino-Mayer

Common objectives:

  • Put the present in perspective of the past
  • Better understand current environmental processes and conditions
  • Improve understanding of possible environmental issues of the future
    To meet these objectives, the exact year of formation of each growth ring must be known:
  • Merely counting rings doesn't ensure accurate dating
  • Crossdating, also known as pattern matching, ensures accurate dating
  • Your growth in one week would not create this asymmetrical appearance, instead the growth would be concentric and fairly uniform in cell size throughout the growth, with large cells and no discernible ring formation. Your "explanation" fails to cover all the facts of the evidence and it is contradicted by the rest of the evidence: it is a false concept.

    OK, so are you saying that in Prometheus, there are 4700 plus physical rings, and we are not missing any now?? Yes or no will do!

    No and Yes. It is truly amazing how you seem to be so incapable of processing such simple information. There are 4844 continuous growth rings visible and countable on the cross-section cut from the Prometheus tree - there are no missing rings in those 4844 continuous growth rings - BUT those rings do not include the core rings from when the tree germinated. As noted several times, the weathered side of the tree had weathered and eroded to the point where these rings were no longer part of the trunk when it was cut down: thus the tree was older than 4844 years -- how much older we can't know because that information is missing. Look again at the picture above to see the typical cross-section for a Bristlecone Pine and see how there is no growth on the weathered side of the tree.

    No, we can't! Only up till the split, then the rings represent much shorter times than seasons. But there were still variations in the days, that we no longer know today. Wet periods, etc.

    This does not explain the 14C data and it does not explain the difference in cell growth between early growth and late growth in an annual ring:

    http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html

    quote:

    Click to enlarge

    Conifer Tree Ring
    earlywood
    - appears light in color
    - cells have thin walls, large diameter
    latewood
    - appears dark in color
    - cells have thick walls, small diameter

    Aha!!! Here they admit to lumping!! They need to look at the pre present state rings alone. Simple as that. Otherwise it is useless.

    And this simply ignores the correlations between the rings that show the same climate patterns and same 14C levels for thousands of rings. Simply ignoring the evidence does not make it go away or in any way explain the correlations.

    Unless you assume the evidence is lying.

    Correction: 10,000 rings, not years. Big difference.
    Long as they don't try to anchor it all to a present state universe and growth! Again, rings do not equal years anywhere but in this state. No lumping together in the big assumption.
    Great, so we can take the dead tree, and it's 4000 rings, and assume it took anywhere from, say, from 4-6 years, at about two rings a day. - So?? I'm laughing.

    Correction: 10,000 rings that show annual patterns of growth with early wood and late wood exactly matching the patterns shown above. Rings that also show different 14C levels consistent with age for annual rings.

    Unless you assume the evidence is lying.

    And you still have not provided any mechanism for rings to be formed in your scenario.

    "In order for carbon dating to by accurate certain foundational assumptions must first be true. We must assume to know that the rate at which carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 hasn't somehow changed throughout the unobservable past. We must also assume to know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime."
    http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/accuracy-of-carbon-dating-faq.htm
    So, the foundational assumptions are totally dependent on a same past state you cannot prove!!!

    Except that I am not using carbon-14 dating here, just the observable levels of 14C in the samples. Those remain the same for any year of formation no matter what you assume about the decay rates being the same or different. Tree rings that are the same age cannot have different 14C levels, the ring samples do have different 14C levels, and therefore they cannot be the same age.

    Unless you assume that the evidence is lying.

    Now, if this simplified version is anywhere near true, the whole idea of carbon beyond this present state is bogus.
    "Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards."
    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

    Don Batten is a fraud, a con, a scam. Here his article uses outdated information -- he is referring to one of the oak dendrochronologies used in IntCal98, which has now been completely superseded by new samples added to the data set where all the samples are aligned by the climate markers, the data set used in IntCal04. This use of 14C dating also does NOT apply to the other oak dendrochronology OR to the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology -- simply speaking Don Batten is not telling you the truth.

    Dendro age does not exist save in your minds. Not beyond this state, as far as ring/years go. There goes the one column!!! Now, 14C age does not exist beyond this state either, so there goes the other column!!! All you have left is your little 'wiggle match uncertainty'. I'll have to say that it is even more uncertain than they dreamed.

    Only if you assume the evidence is lying. This brings us back once more to your essential belief in a god-of-lies, a god that creates false information with the intention of deceiving those looking for the truth.

    So far your only argument in this whole thread is based on all the evidence lying.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by simple, posted 07-04-2007 1:18 AM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by simple, posted 07-08-2007 1:41 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 78 of 90 (409132)
    07-07-2007 3:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by simple
    07-07-2007 12:00 AM


    Re: All you have are delusions of reality or a reality of delusion
    ? 67? Do you mean 57?

    Sorry, typo. Meant cobalt-56. I've revised the post accordingly.

    Where reason is defined as belief in the myth of a same state past. The problem is, they have no facts for that.

    No, reason is defined as assuming that the evidence is the truth, and that logic can be used to make valid conclusions based on that evidence.

    Your alternative is to assume that it is all lies, and thus the conclusions are false. The problem you have is that this (a) makes your creator of that evidence a god-of-lies and (b) means that all is illusion, even your concept.

    Except that when it fades faster than required in that scenario, all you do is sprinkle stardust on it!!

    Nope: what the scientists did was look for other evidence, and they found it in the gamma ray photons that matched the missing visible light photons, gamma rays with precisely the same energy as we see here on earth from cobalt-56 decay.

    So?? Why would they not move at about the same speed as light??

    They have mass. This means, according to relativity theory, that they cannot move faster than the speed of light, and thus they left the star before the visible light did. This was predicted with the time-frame observed, so this observation validates the predictions and bolsters the model used to make those predictions.

    Or we need to assume that this evidence was fabricated in just the right way to make this appear so.

    "Assuming that ... nearly thin regions."
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v332/n6164/abs/332516a0.html

    This is from April 1988, less than a year after the nova was first observed. Evidence from later observations over-ride these comments.

    The temporary state is no lie. Thinking is was all there was, and will be all there will is where you got muddled up thinking a lie was involved.

    Sorry, you are still stuck with your version of events being entirely dependent and the evidence being false, and false in a very specific way intended to mislead those looking for the truth. You are stuck with your creator of such a universe of lies being the cause of it all. Of course he logical extension of your argument means you cannot even be sure of last Thursday: the entire universe could have been created last Thursday with all memories and evidence in place. Certainly it is no argument that what you claim occurred did in fact occur that way, for your past world is just as subject to the whim of your unknown "past state" -- it is no evidence FOR your position.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by simple, posted 07-07-2007 12:00 AM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 80 by simple, posted 07-08-2007 2:07 AM RAZD has responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 79 of 90 (409216)
    07-08-2007 1:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
    07-07-2007 10:44 AM


    False accusations against the Almighty crushed
    quote:
    You have yet to establish any valid basis for assuming whole trees could grow in just one week. Talk about blind unsupported assumptions.
    Without a valid proof of a same state past, you have no reason why not! I have the bible, and what a document that is!

    quote:
    This still fails to explain tree rings (caused by growth at different rates due to seasons - noted in Message 8 and still not dealt with) and 14C/12C values being different in the different rings. This also does not explain the shape and form of the Bristlecone Pine trunks and growth patterns:

    Already pointed out that the seasons could have been in a day. The mist coming up in the day, etc.

    quote:
    This means that the mature trees only grow on one side, the side sheltered from the major (winter) storms by the rest of the trunk, and leaving bare wood on the exposed side to create their characteristic appearance, bare wood that can erode away with each storm and winter season (freeze thaw cycles). Here is an example of a cross-section cut from a Bristlecone Pine:

    Show us this pattern in rings beyond the 4400 level? No lumping the present in with the far past.

    quote:
    Your growth in one week would not create this asymmetrical appearance, instead the growth would be concentric and fairly uniform in cell size throughout the growth, with large cells and no discernible ring formation. Your "explanation" fails to cover all the facts of the evidence and it is contradicted by the rest of the evidence: it is a false concept.

    A couple of things. First, I say a tree could grow in a week, like the olive tree Noah saw. Maybe some took longer. Maybe years.

    Nowthen, let's see some rings 4500 deep here, and cut the present nonsense.

    quote:
    No and Yes. It is truly amazing how you seem to be so incapable of processing such simple information. There are 4844 continuous growth rings visible and countable on the cross-section cut from the Prometheus tree - there are no missing rings in those 4844 continuous growth rings - BUT those rings do not include the core rings from when the tree germinated. As noted several times, the weathered side of the tree had weathered and eroded to the point where these rings were no longer part of the trunk when it was cut down: thus the tree was older than 4844 years -- how much older we can't know because that information is missing. Look again at the picture above to see the typical cross-section for a Bristlecone Pine and see how there is no growth on the weathered side of the tree.

    Ah, OK, so there actually are physical rings beyond the 4400 mark. Fine. Now, is it hard to get a close up of the rings that are beyond this?? That is the area in question. And only that.

    I must admit, I do find it curious that the missing rings are from the early starting growth of the tree. That could be significant.

    quote:

    This does not explain the 14C data and it does not explain the difference in cell growth between early growth and late growth in an annual ring:
    A different amount of carbon in the past could be a prt of the explanation. As for cell growth, let's see the pre 4500 level rings, and the cell growth here that you find relevant.
    quote:
    And this simply ignores the correlations between the rings that show the same climate patterns and same 14C levels for thousands of rings. Simply ignoring the evidence does not make it go away or in any way explain the correlations.

    Unless you assume the evidence is lying.


    I assume that you can't seem to focus on the era in question, and try to lump in the present stuff. Anyone that can read would have to assume the same!

    quote:
    Correction: 10,000 rings that show annual patterns of growth with early wood and late wood exactly matching the patterns shown above. Rings that also show different 14C levels consistent with age for annual rings.

    Unless you assume the evidence is lying.

    And you still have not provided any mechanism for rings to be formed in your scenario.



    Rings affected by the wet parts of the day, and the windy parts of the day, and ....etc. I see no reason that the different light, and growth processes could not form rings.

    quote:
    Don Batten is a fraud, a con, a scam. Here his article uses outdated information -- he is referring to one of the oak dendrochronologies used in IntCal98, which has now been completely superseded by new samples added to the data set where all the samples are aligned by the climate markers, the data set used in IntCal04. This use of 14C dating also does NOT apply to the other oak dendrochronology OR to the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology -- simply speaking Don Batten is not telling you the truth.

    I think the point here, is that trees correspond in growth, that they lived before or during the live tree's time. This matters not at all except in a same past myth. Not at all.

    quote:
    Except that I am not using carbon-14 dating here, just the observable levels of 14C in the samples. Those remain the same for any year of formation no matter what you assume about the decay rates being the same or different. Tree rings that are the same age cannot have different 14C levels, the ring samples do have different 14C levels, and therefore they cannot be the same age.

    Unless you assume that the evidence is lying.


    No, so let's see it then!! What can you tell us about the carbon levels pre 4500 rings ago??

    quote:
    Only if you assume the evidence is lying. This brings us back once more to your essential belief in a god-of-lies, a god that creates false information with the intention of deceiving those looking for the truth.

    Those looking for the truth using a baseless assumption of a same state past and future are really looking to prop up their myth! Once they realize it could never be supported, their search would have to go beyond the limits of PO science.

    All evidence can be looked at with either a same past or different past filter. Period.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 10:44 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 80 of 90 (409226)
    07-08-2007 2:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
    07-07-2007 3:18 PM


    The PO projection into space
    quote:
    Sorry, typo. Meant cobalt-56. I've revised the post accordingly.

    OK, but the days needed there were adjusted as the light faded, speculating that dust made it fade faster.
    So, it isn't like we have a precise thing here.

    quote:
    No, reason is defined as assuming that the evidence is the truth, and that logic can be used to make valid conclusions based on that evidence.

    Your alternative is to assume that it is all lies, and thus the conclusions are false. The problem you have is that this (a) makes your creator of that evidence a god-of-lies and (b) means that all is illusion, even your concept.


    The evidence is only the truth when we can understand what we see. When you start from the myth, and filter evidence through it, it can no longer be called the truth. Not unless the filter was verified. It can never ever ever ever be. Ever.

    quote:
    Nope: what the scientists did was look for other evidence, and they found it in the gamma ray photons that matched the missing visible light photons, gamma rays with precisely the same energy as we see here on earth from cobalt-56 decay.

    Can you flesh this out? Why and how? And so?

    quote:
    They have mass. This means, according to relativity theory, that they cannot move faster than the speed of light, and thus they left the star before the visible light did. This was predicted with the time-frame observed, so this observation validates the predictions and bolsters the model used to make those predictions.

    Or we need to assume that this evidence was fabricated in just the right way to make this appear so.



    Ah. No. Any mass gamma ray photons might have is present state mass. Why would this get here about the same time as the light? In your mind there was an explosion, and they both left about the same time almost, the gamma rays a little before. I wonder if the light that was left here in this universe did not come in several flavors. - The electromagnetic spectrum. If the spectrum came to be at the split, then it was then that the light was left, or scattered in all the ways we know it here. In such a case, having a part of the stuff scattered arrive some days or weeks before others is no biggie!!!

    Job 38:24 - By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

    The PO projection into space that you do is a cute little show. But the creation reality coming at us is the show of shows.

    quote:
    This is from April 1988, less than a year after the nova was first observed. Evidence from later observations over-ride these comments.

    They still show the underlying sort of assumptions that are made, only more of the same these days, to try and explain in a PO way, new stuff that comes up. Since the first explanations are shown to be wrong, they are indeed no longer valid. Fact is they never were, any more than today's attempts!!

    quote:

    Sorry, you are still stuck with your version of events being entirely dependent and the evidence being false, and false in a very specific way intended to mislead those looking for the truth. You are stuck with your creator of such a universe of lies being the cause of it all. Of course he logical extension of your argument means you cannot even be sure of last Thursday: the entire universe could have been created last Thursday with all memories and evidence in place. Certainly it is no argument that what you claim occurred did in fact occur that way, for your past world is just as subject to the whim of your unknown "past state" -- it is no evidence FOR your position.

    Or for yours! But I have the bible, which is better than nothing. No, the earth could not have changed last week. WE observed that, as we did last year, century, etc. But guess where it all starts to end, and NO longer be recorded??? - The first kingdoms after the flood, which you of course have dated wrong!!! That is a real barrier.

    Edited by simple, : No reason given.

    Edited by simple, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 3:18 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 5:08 PM simple has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 81 of 90 (409996)
    07-12-2007 5:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 80 by simple
    07-08-2007 2:07 AM


    Re: The PO projection into space - and all that is in it ....
    The evidence is only the truth when we can understand what we see. When you start from the myth, and filter evidence through it, it can no longer be called the truth. Not unless the filter was verified. It can never ever ever ever be. Ever.
    Job 38:24 - By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
    The PO projection into space that you do is a cute little show. But the creation reality coming at us is the show of shows.
    Or for yours! But I have the bible, which is better than nothing. No, the earth could not have changed last week. WE observed that, as we did last year, century, etc. But guess where it all starts to end, and NO longer be recorded??? - The first kingdoms after the flood, which you of course have dated wrong!!! That is a real barrier.

    No, all you have done is thrown out evidence with a wave of your hand.

    When you start with the assumption that the evidence is false you end up with a universe that is false: the universe that includes your bible and the stories in it. These stories also come from before your "change" time and you cannot be sure that the words used in them mean the same thing now as they did before the "change" time: what do they mean by "light" and "earth" and "wind" and other words? You don't know without assuming they are the same as the present -- something you have been at pains to demonstrate is a false assumption. It applies to all things or none. You are hoist on your own petard.

    All you have is a null hypothesis, it does not prove anything, other than that it is a foolish hypothesis.

    Now, care to address the evidence that shows the earth is old?

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by simple, posted 07-08-2007 2:07 AM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by simple, posted 07-12-2007 6:34 PM RAZD has responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 82 of 90 (410005)
    07-12-2007 6:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
    07-12-2007 5:08 PM


    Woodshed wails turn to occasional peeps.
    quote:
    No, all you have done is thrown out evidence with a wave of your hand.

    When you start with the assumption that the evidence is false you end up with a universe that is false: the universe that includes your bible and the stories in it. These stories also come from before your "change" time and you cannot be sure that the words used in them mean the same thing now as they did before the "change" time: what do they mean by "light" and "earth" and "wind" and other words?


    Not a universe that is false, but one that is not the true created eternal state! Temporary. The only so called evidence you mean is things we see that you filter through your assumption that it was always like this. Same with the future, when you claim a dismal crashing of our galaxy, or fizzling out of our sun, or whatever. That you have to admit. You have no idea about the future state of the heavens at all. The only ideas from the past come from the myth of a same state past.

    The is, in the future, light in heaven, so we won't need the light of the sun. So it is fine to assume some differences in light. The earth will be made new, and Eden was a lot different, because in both places we and the earth last forever. It is perfectly OK to assume a different state earth! In fact, if we are talking future or deep past, it is a must. There also will be wind, just as some sort of wind blew on the flooded earth. This may have been some sort of space wind, or such, that could not exist in this present state, for all we know. The air may have even been a little different, but wind was still wind of some kind. Yes, we may assume that there were fundamental differences in many basic things we take for granted as being 'normal' now the way we know them.

    It is not perfectly OK to assume, however that they were the same. Not if you want to call it science. To do that, you end up with missing black holes, stars, evidences, and leaps of faith that head right to the pond, or the whole universe in a little soup.

    quote:
    You don't know without assuming they are the same as the present -- something you have been at pains to demonstrate is a false assumption. It applies to all things or none. You are hoist on your own petard.

    Then we don't know! So what? Science is not just about religiously holding to a baseless assumption the past and future have to be the same. It applies only to what it applies to, and that is this temporary state physical only universe. Maybe not even all of it, for example, the interior of the earth is likely still merged, both spiritual and physical. The seismic waves that hit this material might register as liquid or something. They do not have the smarts to detect spiritual also material.

    Man is much smaller than you have presumed in real knowledge.

    quote:
    All you have is a null hypothesis, it does not prove anything, other than that it is a foolish hypothesis.

    No more null than yours, and certainly not as dull! It is also not based on bull.

    quote:
    Now, care to address the evidence that shows the earth is old?

    If you stumble on any let us know. Meanwhile you were asked some things, and all you come back with is this. Like what about the pre 4400 level tree rings?? What pattern and carbon, etc there do we see, without lumping in all the post split ring growth as well?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 5:08 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 83 by AdminCoragyps, posted 07-12-2007 8:45 PM simple has responded
     Message 84 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 9:27 PM simple has responded

    AdminCoragyps
    Inactive Member


    Message 83 of 90 (410028)
    07-12-2007 8:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by simple
    07-12-2007 6:34 PM


    I promoted this mess of my own free will. I'm going to close it if you don't say just a little something a tiny bit novel soon, Keys/Simple. This same old "split" stuff is not even worth a giggle any more.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by simple, posted 07-12-2007 6:34 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 12:01 AM AdminCoragyps has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 84 of 90 (410036)
    07-12-2007 9:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by simple
    07-12-2007 6:34 PM


    Re: Woodshed wails turn to occasional peeps.
    Yes, your "peeps" and whimpers are become less and less noisy.

    From Message 1:

    The purpose of this thread for me will to present evidence for the case that the age of the earth as portrayed in the museum is false and that a global flood could not have occurred withing that time (or any reasonable approximation), and for you to defend the age and flood occurrence as portrayed with whatever evidence or argument you wish to make.

    I have presented the evidence. You have not defended the age and flood occurrence as portrayed in the museum with any kind of evidence or even a cohesive argument.

    My job is done, and I don't need to provide you with any more evidence (and there is a lot more), as you haven't dealt with the evidence provided yet.

    You have not begun to do your job, all you have done is dodge the issue, out behind your woodshed, running around in circles, a chicken with it's head cut off. The sad thing is that you cut your own head off.

    Your argument consists of claiming that things are not as they appear to be. That this includes your entire fantasy seems to elude you, but there it is. The fact that this makes you a believer in a god that lies and intentionally produces false information that is extremely intricate in it's mockery of fact also seems to elude you, but there it is. The only conclusion I can reach is that you don't care to present a valid argument so long as you can claim to doubt the evidence based on some personal fantasy. That is delusion.

    Science does not assume that the present applies to the past. They assume that the evidence is the truth. Thus when the spectrograph of the light from SN1987A matches the specific spectrograph for cobalt-56 we assume this is the truth -- it does not match any other element. When we see decay occur on a 77 day half-life we assume that this means the decay occurs on a 77 day half-life. That this also matches the decay rate for cobalt-56 is not just a coincidence, it is confirming evidence.

    When scientists count the rings on trees they do not assume that they are all annual rings: they look at them for the characteristics that annual rings have and they note the variations in those rings that are consistent with climate and the environment the trees are growing in, and when they have verified the rings are consistent with annual rings then they count them.

    Scientists do not assume that the levels of 14C are constant in the atmosphere, in fact the reverse is true: they look at the 14C data from the tree rings from three different chronologies that ALL MATCH 14C levels with age AND match between them for climate changes. They look at those things to see how things WERE different in the past.

    You are not interested in evidence or data or any part of reality. All you are interested in doing is hear yourself speak.

    So run around a little more chicken little -- don't forget to say "the sky is falling" again: have a last peep or two.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : .

    Edited by RAZD, : ypot

    Edited by RAZD, : two


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by simple, posted 07-12-2007 6:34 PM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 85 of 90 (410049)
    07-13-2007 12:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 83 by AdminCoragyps
    07-12-2007 8:45 PM


    PO stuff not worth a giggle any More
    Your failure to establish a PO past is all that matters. The rest is elementary. Whether you like it or not.

    The mess is yours. The future is mine.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by AdminCoragyps, posted 07-12-2007 8:45 PM AdminCoragyps has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by AdminCoragyps, posted 07-13-2007 7:34 PM simple has not yet responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 86 of 90 (410052)
    07-13-2007 12:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
    07-12-2007 9:27 PM


    Comprehension Deficit
    quote:
    Your argument consists of claiming that things are not as they appear to be.
    False, you show you don't even comprehend the argument. They are as they appear to be! Your claim they always will be and were is what is blown away by your utter lack of any evidence or proof.

    quote:
    Science does not assume that the present applies to the past. They assume that the evidence is the truth. Thus when the spectrograph of the light from SN1987A matches the specific spectrograph for cobalt-56 we assume this is the truth -

    If there is cobalt, so what?? The light curve faded faster than we would expect. So you attribute that to dust. Yet you never get down to the details, like the tree rings pre split.

    quote:
    the spectrograph of the light from SN1987A matches the specific spectrograph for cobalt-56 we assume this is the truth -- it does not match any other element. When we see decay occur on a 77 day half-life we assume that this means the decay occurs on a 77 day half-life. That this also matches the decay rate for cobalt-56 is not just a coincidence, it is confirming evidence.

    And when it fades faster that expected we also assume that is true. The match, then depends on the right amount of dust, no?? Prove there was the right amount, don't assume it.
    quote:
    When scientists count the rings on trees they do not assume that they are all annual rings: they look at them for the characteristics that annual rings have and they note the variations in those rings that are consistent with climate and the environment the trees are growing in, and when they have verified the rings are consistent with annual rings then they count them.
    They assume that conditions were the same, and yes, they do assume rings equal a year. Face it.

    quote:
    Scientists do not assume that the levels of 14C are constant in the atmosphere, in fact the reverse is true: they look at the 14C data from the tree rings from three different chronologies that ALL MATCH 14C levels with age AND match between them for climate changes. They look at those things to see how things WERE different in the past.

    I never said they do assume the levels are constant, I don't think. And, I have told you many times to stop the silly lumping. Focus on the pre flood rings.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 9:27 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 6:00 AM simple has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 87 of 90 (410074)
    07-13-2007 6:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 86 by simple
    07-13-2007 12:13 AM


    Re: Comprehension Deficit
    False, you show you don't even comprehend the argument. They are as they appear to be! Your claim they always will be and were is what is blown away by your utter lack of any evidence or proof.

    Now you are dancing around the issue of your failed argument.

    If there is cobalt, so what?? The light curve faded faster than we would expect. So you attribute that to dust. Yet you never get down to the details, like the tree rings pre split.
    And when it fades faster that expected we also assume that is true. The match, then depends on the right amount of dust, no?? Prove there was the right amount, don't assume it.

    No the curve is interrupted by -- guess what -- the star exploding, which is preety surprising seeing as it is exploding. The decay didn't fade, it is still there shown by the gamma rays as well as the visible light. You are unable to deal with the evidence -- just like you can't even get the evidence from one tree right.

    They assume that conditions were the same, and yes, they do assume rings equal a year. Face it.

    No, they assume that summer section plus winter section add up to a year. Face it: you can't deal with the tree evidence, you can't even get it right.

    I never said they do assume the levels are constant, I don't think. And, I have told you many times to stop the silly lumping. Focus on the pre flood rings.

    There aren't any: the growth is continuous, therefore they have to be after the flood. It is really a simple concept.

    over 12,000 years of continuous tree ring data and you can't deal with the first tree. Comprehension deficit? Yeah, in spades.

    Your argument is tired and refuted, and repeating it adds nothing to the debate, which you have singularly failed. Trees, ice layers, lake varves, super nova all show consistent information. You don't.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : last


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 12:13 AM simple has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 2:14 PM RAZD has responded

    simple 
    Inactive Suspended Member


    Message 88 of 90 (410158)
    07-13-2007 2:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
    07-13-2007 6:00 AM


    POsurroundvision
    quote:
    No the curve is interrupted by -- guess what -- the star exploding, which is preety surprising seeing as it is exploding. The decay didn't fade, it is still there shown by the gamma rays as well as the visible light. You are unable to deal with the evidence -- just like you can't even get the evidence from one tree right.

    The evidence I deal with is what is presented, not some vague claim after the fact that is not clearly supported. I already gave the link that mentioned that it was the dust that made the curve fade faster. Maybe you could make your point, if you have one clearly, and simply.

    ""It is true that there is a little more light coming from the supernova than you'd expect just from radioactive decay," says Robert P. Kirshner of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "What we see is consistent with the formation of a neutron star that's a pulsar, but it doesn't prove it."
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n25_v134/ai_6935010

    There is not just light expected from decay there. That is why they invent black holes or missing stars. Something else is in the in here they don't account for or comprehend.

    And what they look for is PO past explanations that might 'explain it'.
    "Our study shows that moderate 56Ni mixing at velocities ≤2500 km s−1 can explain the observed light curve if the density of the outer layers of the presupernova [b]exceeds the value obtained in the evolutionary model of a single nonrotating star [u]severalfold[/u].[/b]"
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/10637737/2004/00000030/00000005/00000426

    "The Mass of Evidence
    One clue was the elements needed to produce the extra brightness. "All the power in a Type Ia comes from the burning of carbon and oxygen to heavier elements, notably nickel 56," Nugent says. "A Type Ia of normal brightness makes about 60 percent of a solar mass worth of nickel 56, the rest being other elements. But SNLS-03D3bb is more than twice as bright as normal; it must have more than twice as much nickel 56. The only way to get that is with a progenitor that's 50 percent more massive than the Chandrasekhar mass."

    The other factor is the slowness of SNLS-03D3bb's ejecta, as detected in the shifting of elemental lines in its spectrum. The velocity of supernova ejecta depends on the kinetic energy released in the explosion, which is the difference between the energy released in thermonuclear burning minus the binding energy that acts to hold the star together, a function of the star's mass. The more massive the star, the slower the ejecta.

    But how could a carbon-oxygen progenitor ever accumulate mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit without exploding? It's possible that a very rapidly spinning star could be more massive. It's also possible that two white dwarfs, with a combined mass well over the Chandrasekhar limit, could collide and explode."
    http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/22/new-kind-of-supernova-discovered/

    The assumption is present state mass, of course. There are a plethora of assumptions piled on to form the ever shifting claims of what 'must' have went on with these SNs! The elements we detect in the spectrum are also steeped in assumptions. For example, if the universe state were not the same, and one created a star, would not one also use the elements, with the same spectral signature? If it was a time reversal thing, we should still see the same elements. Or, possibly if it was an explosion as apparent to our perceptions, remember it still would have been long ago. That means it also could have been affected by any universe state change, and we simply get a delayed 'movie' of what went on, coming in to us in POsurroundvision.

    That won't be determined by your vague responses, skirting the evidence, and making vague little statements. The more one looks at the claims, the more ridiculous and religious they start to appear.

    quote:
    No, they assume that summer section plus winter section add up to a year. Face it: you can't deal with the tree evidence, you can't even get it right.

    They also assume that the yearand patterns extend into the unknown deep past, which they also assume for no reason was the same. Thanks for admitting that!

    quote:
    There aren't any: the growth is continuous, therefore they have to be after the flood. It is really a simple concept.

    over 12,000 years of continuous tree ring data and you can't deal with the first tree. Comprehension deficit? Yeah, in spades.



    They are too some rings that extend beyond the 44, or 4500 level. You admitted that already. The simple concept is your unflinching unbased belief that the state was the same then, and that the ring pattern HAD to be formed as no. Nonsense. There were wet parts of a day, water coming up from below. There were windy bits, there were days and nights, maybe some flooding now and then, and etc etc etc. There is no reason at all to say that the rings were not laid down in the faster growth of the past. None. You were asked to focus on the suspect era pre 4400 level rings, and show the data there only. Then you need to show why it had to be PO. You can't. Really. Your myth is busted real good.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 6:00 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2007 5:35 PM simple has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18241
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 89 of 90 (410196)
    07-13-2007 5:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 88 by simple
    07-13-2007 2:14 PM


    You've run out of absurd argument - thus repetition is your only refuge
    Nothing new. Yawn.

    There is not just light expected from decay there. That is why they invent black holes or missing stars. Something else is in the in here they don't account for or comprehend.

    You still fail to deal with the spectrograph light that shows cobalt-56, and you still fail to deal with the evidence of decay of cobalt-56. You still fail to explain the 77 day half-life decay rate. You cannot explain it for the visible light in the first 500 days, and you cannot explain the later correlation with visible light and gamma rays afterwards. You cannot explain the energy levels of the gamma rays exactly matching those of cobalt-56 decay here. You cannot explain the details of the evidence.

    They also assume that the yearand patterns extend into the unknown deep past, which they also assume for no reason was the same. Thanks for admitting that!
    They are too some rings that extend beyond the 44, or 4500 level. You admitted that already. The simple concept is your unflinching unbased belief that the state was the same then, and that the ring pattern HAD to be formed as no. Nonsense. There were wet parts of a day, water coming up from below. There were windy bits, there were days and nights, maybe some flooding now and then, and etc etc etc. There is no reason at all to say that the rings were not laid down in the faster growth of the past. None. You were asked to focus on the suspect era pre 4400 level rings, and show the data there only. Then you need to show why it had to be PO. You can't. Really. Your myth is busted real good.

    Your fantasy still fails to explain the details of the tree ring formation that the scientists look for -- the details caused by extended periods of winter weather. You cannot produce these details with your fantasy.

    Your fantasy also still fails to explain the details of the levels of 14C found in the different rings, levels substantially different throughout the tree ring record.

    You still fail to deal with the tree ring evidence that comes from a single tree.

    You fail to make any argument for a young earth and you fail to refute the evidence for an old earth. Denial is not refuting. Fantasy is not evidence.

    You fail to make any case for a "split" date at all, whether it is 4400 or 4500 or whatever years ago. Without a valid argument for such a "split" all you are doing is whistling in the dark.

    You have failed to make any case for a different past, just posted fancy fantasy as if if were reality: it isn't. Without a valid argument that there really was a different past you have an empty argument devoid of rational.

    You have failed to make your case. Totally.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : splitpast


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 2:14 PM simple has not yet responded

    AdminCoragyps
    Inactive Member


    Message 90 of 90 (410213)
    07-13-2007 7:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by simple
    07-13-2007 12:01 AM


    Closing.......
    The future is mine.

    Not in this thread it ain't.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by simple, posted 07-13-2007 12:01 AM simple has not yet responded

    Prev12345
    6
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017