|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: I simply don't believe most of the "data" being put out by laboratories. The only data I feel compelled to believe is data obtained in an investigation where qualified creationists are "in" on the investigation details. I know this, because where I have been able to check into details in the journals (if you dig deep enough) the influence of the assumptions and philosophy are revealed. The so called "correlations" are little more than propaganda.Also the samples submitted to the laboratories undergo a sort of Natural Selection. If the investigator "believes" a sample falls in a certain age range, and it doesn't, then some exucse -- contamination, etc., geological activity, or other ad hoc assumption is made to dismiss the date. So if the investigator does not swear that all the dates sampled are in the journals, then how can we be sure of the experimental "control" for the data. We can't. The journals don't think they need a control, because they've already decided that the rejection of the discrpeant dates is justified a priori on the theory that the rocks are old anyway. If evolutionists want to convince creationists of an old earth using legitimate means, then since they are in control of the publications, they are obligated to PROVE that there is no bias. When they can demonstrate that they are not guilty of propaganda, then we might consider their claims. Meanwhile, I and other creationists in the small sphere where we have personally investigated a matter to the bottom have found that the evidence comes down on the side of a young earth. I would certainly not believe ANY claim of any evidence on a board like this until it was thoroughly vetted to an unambiguous conclusion of the actual evidence. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review:
quote: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood? Also, the ice flow models for GRIP and other cores are flawed. Here the problem is the model assumptions and the interpretation of the results.
quote:
Still Trying to Make Ice Cores Old
| Answers in Genesis
quote: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Testing the Theories Like I said, no one can be sure of anything the other side presents as a "fact" to really be a "fact". However, my own testimony is that when it is possible to examine the supposed "facts" that they fall apart, and I present the conclusions of other creationists to encourage people to do their own examination. If it is honest, I believe they will find on the level of their own experience this to be true, provided they resist "group think" and don't fall into logical traps. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Well, I've seen a lot of claims here and a lot of "logical" deductions from those claims, but I see no compelling reason to think any of them are actually true since logic is only good when you reason from facts and not assumptions.
Case and point -- why should I believe YOU'all vs. what Brown says?: See: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood Have any of you read his chapter on the Grand Canyon? An honest person will have to admit it is more credible than any evolutionary explanation. Case and point2: just try to make off with any piece of bristlecone, and you may end up in jail. (So you see, my personal knowledge of forest service regs demonstrates why anyone without that knowledge should not ASSUME that they can trust what is said here.). Case and point: Brown was closely connected with AZU and was on good terms with people there, so he has more credibility than those who say he is a nut without proving it. My knowledge of who his teacher was says a lot for him. And yes, the pychosis of the evolutionary community lends itself to mass distortion of the the facts. Nothing is new in history. The Soviets had their propaganda too, and so the Nazi's. The "official" "published" truth is always part lies, and with many a regime, the main point was the lie. What is most telling about those who fall into these propaganda's is their official lack of respect for anyone who differs. A degree these days does not just indicate competence in scientific research. It also usually means one is an approved and vetted promoter of the establisment religion of the evolutionary worldview. Like I said, ONLY first hand evidence, or what we can agree IS first hand evidence is a valid basis for making deductions that must be logically true. I have often be the victum of uncritically accepting some piece of "evidence" only to find that it led to inconsistency, and later have to come back to question it and succeed in finding hole in it. Finally, I don't have to investigate or disprove every other argument put up to know the truth. I only have to prove one major truth, and logically reason from it that it contradicts all the other contenders. You will see that research if you follow the link to my online book on biblical chrononlogy, where I show the TOTAL CORRELATION of all the biblical chronology, and then do the probability calculations showing that the probability of achieving such a correlation is less than 1 in 10^50. So my first hand knowledge of this is sufficient reason to ASSUME that all of the so called arguments for geological dating correlations are flawed. Edited by Daniel4140, : formatting Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page234.pdfhttp://www.torahtimes.org/book/page235.pdf Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Edited by Daniel4140, : added reason for links Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: Generalizations are not evidence. Try presenting the evidence. Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The original post????
It's all conclusions with no actual data. I might be impressed if you could link to a site that shows photos of all the tree cross sections and which rings match to which in an 8000 year sequence. It should also show any statistical methods used to justify a match. Until you can show the data, we don't have to believe a word you say. I would probably actually be interested in the actual data. But I have NO interest in prepackaged slanted conclusions.On ice cores, we want to see ALL the raw data online, with all the assumptions, and all the mathematics that went into it. Then we will draw our own conclusions. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The original post????
It's all conclusions with no actual data. I might be impressed if you could link to a site that shows photos of all the tree cross sections and which rings match to which in an 8000 year sequence. It should also show any statistical methods used to justify a match. Until you can show the data, we don't have to believe a word you say. I would probably actually be interested in the actual data. But I have NO interest in prepackaged slanted conclusions.On ice cores, we want to see ALL the raw data online, with all the assumptions, and all the mathematics that went into it. Then we will draw our own conclusions. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher.
Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions. And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax. But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p. Meanwhile, all my data for the correlations in biblical chronology is online at the link below. It is freely accessable. All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments. But as long as you pussy foot around and fail to deliver the data your theory is as good as non-fasifiable. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Provide the data I requested in my previous post. Insults are not data, just further confirmation that you have none.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: "Some" data is not good enough. "Overview" is just another word for your "generalized" conclusion. I read the abstract on the 1093 article. Statistics yes, but not the one's that go with the 8000 year tree ring chronology, just a generalized mathematical analysis of 14C calibration curves. Where are the photo's of the rings, the measurments of rings matching before 4000 B.P.?Evolutionary propaganda normally begins with the conclusions, and expects us to believe them based on their aura of "scientific" authority. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
"I don't understand your methodology"
My reply to that question seems to have gone astray. Maybe I hit preview only and did not post it? 1. First construct biblical chronology without regard to sabbath year synchronisms.2. Find all the allusions to sabbatical years, or the places where they should be in the chronology. 3. Test to see if they all fall into one cycle. 4. Give the odds of this happening by accident. The odds of a 7th year being correct by accident are 1/7 and a Jubilee 1/49. 5. Multiply them out 1/7 * 1/7 * 1/49 .... etc, and you arrive at the figure of 1 < 10^50 probability of chance. That's my proof that treering and ice core "chronologies" are bogus. My research is easily verified. It is not obscure like the data for the tree ring stuff. No fancy math either. One more correlation. The age of the "Methuselah Tree" i.e. 4600 years DOES work out to the time of the flood, when the first new trees began growing. What is the probability of that agreeing with the biblical date for the flood? Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: That how the first file under USA opens. No one ever constructed an 8000 year chronology with this species. You need bristlecone pine. I want the data for brislecone dead wood before the 4600 year old "Methuselah" tree. The link you supplied gives data for trees all over the world and all variety of species. I'm not disputing the vast majority of the data, just the data you are using to make the argument on this thread. You guys are putting up the argument. YOU have to prove it. Where is your data!I already posted mine proving yours wrong. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The raw data for the chronology comes from the BIBLE. I have to take it as I find it. I can't change it to fit the cycles. So since seven year cycles and 49 yeear cycles fit EXACTLY for century after century, the probability calculation against it being an accident is valid.
Further, I also have some paper's on my site citing the synchronization of the cycles with the Kondratieff waves. Did you ever hear of the "Pinching Theorem" in Calculus? Well, my research pinches the range of valid tree ring dating between 2484 B.C. and the present. Ditto for ice cores. And I'm still waiting for a direct link to the 8000 year old data based on bristlecone pine. I'm beginning to wonder if it is really mythical data.
quote: Then link it dirrect. I'm not going to pussy foot around with 100's of files. It's your argument. You prove it. Edited by Daniel4140, : To answer another post at the same time Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Hey' thanks for the lewrockwell link. I always disliked Gary North's "econonimcs" because he believes in unregulated captialism. But the biblical chronology actually depends in no way on the kondratieff wave. It is constructed only with biblical data. I only noted the match with the K-wave later. So, no you cannot dismiss the argument by casting doubt on the K-wave, which "doubt" is itself in doubt. I'll read that article.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The Rothbard Article opposing Kondratief wasn't hard to debunk.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024