|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the intrpertation of large ages is invalid since the 14C was not in equilibrium and still, to this very day, has not reached equilibrium. The non-equilibrium condition means that the spread of past dates 0 to 60,0000 B.P. collapses to only 4400 years.
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
On divine intervention, see my article: The Definition of Science and Divine Intervention
Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I for one have no desire to give you any clicks. Please don't spam us with links to your site.
BTW, ever hear of the term off-topic. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
hose back of the envelope calculations are perfectly valid to show that something is wrong with the tree ring conclusions Unsupported assertion. Demonstrate your claim. With math, not handwaving. In another thread.
Until then, the whole idea that tree ring dates correlate to an evolutionary timeframe is just propaganda. The correlations between multiple independent measurements, that RAZD has documented, are observed data. By definition data is not propaganda. If you can't explain that data you have no explanation at all. Edited by JonF, : most of my post disappeared!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote:source: National Geographic Plays the Dating Game | Answers in Genesis Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The alleged problem,overs only the very end of the Suigetsu data. I.e. not particularly relevant; assuming that Woody's correctly representing the data (probably a poor assumption, based on past experience) than there's still 33,000 years of correlation to be explained. And correlation with tree rings and ice cores and ...
Focusing on one item is the wrong thing to do. It's standard creationist practice, but it's still wrong. You need a meta-analysis that explains the observed multiple correlations. {ABE} Another reason to suspect Woody's misrepresenting is his misrepresetnations earlier in the articlee, e.g. his repetition of the Ngauruhoe and Mt. St. Helens dacite and "fossil wood" frauds. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5512 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
You are the one misrepresenting the data. Why didn't you point out this discrepancy in the first place? Why did I have to dig it up?
And if you don't cite all the discrepant data, then why should I assume that those researchers didn't dump a lot of discrepant dates before they got some that agreed with their theory? Your "science" is just divination. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are posting religious apologetics from AiG.
Sorry, when it comes to science, they lie. They have to! Science contradicts their religious beliefs, so they have no choice but to lie about the data and conclusions of science. Otherwise, they would have to admit that they are wrong. You must realize that in a debate in the Science Forums, on this site, that to cite AiG is to admit that your disagreement with science is based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence? Eh? Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest that radiocarbon dating is incorrect? I've worked with hundreds of samples, and other posters here are very familiar with the methods and techniques. Perhaps you should post your specific disagreements with the method so we can discuss them. But don't bother with cut and pastes from AiG--their discussions of radiocarbon dating are pure religious apologetics and very little science. You should be able to do better than that if the method is so flawed, eh? Give it your best shot. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2878 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the interpertation of large ages is invalid since the 14C was not in equilibrium and still, to this very day, has not reached equilibrium. The non-equilibrium condition means that the spread of past dates 0 to 60,0000 B.P. collapses to only 4400 years.
(I did not respond to your following post as it is OT in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the assertion of 'sola scriptura' start another thread and I'll participate there.) Let's accept your model for C14.By your first sentence quoted above C14 correlates with the stratum. But now the problem is that you are superimposing a correlation of a non-equilibrium model for C14 upon a linear layering mechanism. This means that the annual layers are MUCH more frequently deposited than annually initially, (since you agree that they correlate with C14), and that they vary in deposition smoothly from this initial condition to an annual rate today. That is the only way that you can get a correlation of layers with C14 that correlates in the same manner physically in your model and in the standard geological model. If you assume that the flood layed down many layers in a short time frame those layers would share the same C14 signature, which by your first sentence quoted above, you agreed is not the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I'm still concerned about too many messages topics having technical problems.
In general, if there is a specific contention point happening, it would probably be better served by a fresh topic. Closing down sometime this next hour. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Daniel4140 writes: I don't care what you think about that PPT presentation. What I think isn't important. What's important is the misrepresentation I demonstrated by quoting from the original article your PPT cited. What's important is making sure your conclusions are based on accurate information This thread may close soon. If you like you could propose a new thread over at [forum=-25] with your PPT as the topic, and we can go through it claim by claim and see how they hold up to scrutiny. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The time is now.
AM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024