|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Akshully, all this means is that fallen humanity just can't get it right, ... Correlations Faith, correlations means we have high confidence in the results. Certainly when a single Bristlecone pine is 5,068 years old with no effect of a flood reaching it's mountaintop this means no flood in that period, period. When we also have two independent dendrochronologies from nearby areas and they also (a) match each other, ring for ring except for two missing rings in one lining up with very narrow rings in the other, and (b) match the ages of this single tree, AND not show any effec of a flood reaching their mountaintops, this becomes much more than a single piece of evidence, because it means this covers a wider area than a single specimen. Then we have the two independent oak dendrochronologies that match each other AND the Bristlecone pine dendrochronologies, one from peat marshes in Ireland and one from river valleys in Germany and THEY show no effects of massive floods in their areas, then the only logical conclusion is that no flood occurred in these times. The dendrochronologies extend more than 12,000 years into the past with no visible effect of a massive world wide flood. And they are the tip of the iceberg of layer by layer age measurements. No special training is needed to count layers. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If trees grew in weeks in the former nature, ... Demonstrating again your ignorance of what makes a tree ring annual. There are distinct markers for the different seasons of the year. Also demonstrating that you have no idea of the problems with this bind assertion -- like how do you get the 14C levels to match the ring counts, how you get the rings to match the marine and lake varves. AND you need a mechanism that accomplishes these changes in such a way that there is no visible transition. Enoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nothing in your link addresses the issue of what nature the trees grew in. Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature. Ha. Rather obviously it starts in the present and extends into the past by the simple counting of annual rings. The correlations are consistent and cross-referenced between several different methods. As you say, "Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature," and therefore it validates the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "former nature" during this time.
Ha. And yet you have not challenged the correlations at all, you have provided no evidence of your fantasy "former nature" and no cause for anyone to think your assertions are worth the bandwidth you have wasted. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It counts rings as if they were all grown in this nature. Correlations follow accordingly....religion. (1) you have said that the flood occurred in 4,500 years ago in your fantasy years, but that this translates to 70,000,000 years ago in actual scientific years. You seem to be confused which years you are using. (2) you have not established any time frame for this fantasy "former nature" to occur, or any way to distinguish it from the current nature. (3) you still haven't accounted for the C14 levels measured in the tree rings that correlate with the ages of the annual tree rings. Until you do your assertions mean squat. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The issue is what the C14 means. ... Quite simply, the C14 levels are a measurable, verified quantity that is fact. When the C14 levels for a specific tree ring count are the same for dendrochronologies around the world that too is a measurable, independently verified fact. When the C14 levels correlated with tree ring ages form an exponential curve with predictable decreases the older the tree rings are, that too is a measurable, verified fact. Tree rings form in a consistent pattern of growth for different seasons of the year. This too is a measurable, verified fact. Variations in weather and climate patterns are shown by their effect on those growth patterns, with the rings formed today being noticeably wider than those of a decade or a century ago because of warmer climate. This too is a measurable, verified fact. The tree rings also conform to historical facts, demonstrating accuracy as far back as history takes us -- this too is a measurable, verified fact. Thus we know that both tree rings and C14 levels accurately measure age for the period covered independently by history:
quote: These ages are all measurable, independently verified fact. Meanwhile you are an old (scientific) age denier that has not provided a single explanation for a single one of these result. You seems to have a personal fantasy concept that places a mythical flood at 4500 years ago in your fantasy time, but you then claim to correlate that with 70,000,000 years ago in scientifically documented and cross correlated time, by using some hocus pocus magical "former time" -- for which you have provided absolutely no means to distinguish from today. You have no measurable facts, and no independent verification for your fantasy -- it belongs to you alone.
When was the change you asked? Probably about the same time as the tower of Babel, in the days of Peleg. A perfect example of an immeasurable, unverifiable bald assertion void of any factual basis. Note the total lack of specificity on time, the total lack of any means to detect such magic mysterious transformation and the lack of commitment ... because it is made up ad hoc hokum. This also is another example of your confusion between your magic time 4500 year history with the actual scientific 70,000,000 year history -- it seems you keep trying to use both at the same time. Perhaps you could try to provide us with a scale correlating your magical time frame with the actual scientific time frame. You claim to have it worked out ... let's see it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is a fact C14 exists, that is true, but as mentioned the issue is what it means. ... Because each ring has a slightly different C14 amount from the ones before and after it, what it means is that each ring forms either (1) with a different "pre-decayed" level or (2) that sufficient time has passed between ring formations that sufficient decay has occurred in that time (a year, say) to result in the levels seen today. If (1), then please provide a mechanism to "pre-decay" the C14 in precisely the exponential pattern seen in the rings today. If (2), AND you want it to happen in a shorter time period, then please provide (a) a mechanism to grow complete rings with precisely the annual pattern seen today, but within a shorter time-span, and (b) a mechanism to transition seamlessly to the annual pattern seen today, PLUS (c) a mechanism to accelerate the decay in the early days and then transition that to match what we see today. Without even a hint of any of these mechanisms to have ever existed, what they mean is that any fact based rationally minded person will conclude that they represent annual rings and that the C14 levels validate that conclusion.
... Without first proving a same state past, you cannot claim it means anything. You have it backwards, if you are going to make a claim that there was a different state in the past than in the present, then the onus is on YOU to prove your claim is something other that fantasy. You have failed to provide anything to support your fantasy so far. ie - YOU need to prove that I'm wrong. AND, curiously, I don't need to "prove" a same state in the past, because there is no evidence, cause or reason to even begin to think otherwise. Especially when the growth rings show a consistent pattern matching known annual growth rings today AND the C14 levels match the C14 decay curve for the annual count ages of the rings, to say nothing of the rest of the evidence in this thread. All that needs to be done is to compare one to the other on the basis of evidence for and against, to show which is the rational logical choice. That has been done in spades: there is a mountain of evidence for the past being similar to today (this thread provides a small portion of that evidence), and squat evidence for it being even minutely different.
Message 1 (the opening post on the thread): We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms. To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be. 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. Blathering about a different nature in the past in no way addresses the correlations.
By the way I see you mentioned Egypt, so show us a way to date ancient Egypt that does not in any way involve present nature decay rates? Read the link (you can sign up for free access): "The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18)" ... where "Shaw (18) refers to : Shaw, Ed., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000). History, without using decay, shocking ... have fun. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The C14 pattern also could mean that a different nature existed in which C14 was not produced the same way or involve the same time. And if pigs could fly, a different nature could mean they wouldn't need wings. What you are forgetting is (a) you have no evidence of a different nature (b) no means to test for a different nature and (c) -- most importantly -- that this fantasy cannot explain the correlation with the tree rings, including your fantasy concept of tree rings growing in days. That this absolutely fails to explain the correlations is obvious because you have neither explained the actual tree ring counts nor the actual measured C14 amounts in those tree rings. Made up fantasy is not evidence, nor is it argument that invalidates arguments based on evidence, all it amounts to is wishful thinking to fool yourself.
I do not need to prove your religion is wrong. I do not need to prove your same nature in the future and past is bogus. You need to prove it existed or you cannot use it in models! Wrong. You claim it is wrong, therefore you need to demonstrate/show why you think that it is wrong, else you are just spouting fantasy and wishful thinking. Curiously neither fantasy nor wishful thinking are scientific refutations of the correlations nor the methods used to determine age, ...it's just you fooling yourself with wishful thinking fantasy. As long as there is no evidence of a different nature, there is no need to modify science that is based on the evidence of age, because science is based on evidence not fantasy.
Do tell us what Shaw uses to date Egypt! .... It's readily available on line ... and any fool could look it up if truly interested ... for instance: Pharaonic Egypt | Ian Shaw - Academia.edu
quote: The astute reader will note that (A) the Old Kingdom -- the time frame pertinent to this issue -- is well within the Pharaonic/Dynastic Period that is dated absolutely by historical documents and astronomical information, and (B) that these absolute chronological dates were used to calibrate the radiocarbon dating ... rather than radiocarbon dating being used to date these periods.
... I can see why you only alluded to a link. Sadly, for you, links are provided for interested people to further their education and knowledge, so that people with a real interest in the issue can follow them, the way footnotes and reference lists are provided in professional papers. Not following them shows a lack of interest and a preference for ignorance. If you followed the links and read them, then you likely wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself with silly comments.
...Ha.... Yes, funny how you keep saying this when you are then shown to be ignorant and uniformed on the issue. Perhaps you think you made a significant point, but it's just a balloon full of hot air that is easily popped. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now you resort to king lists for dates!!!!?? Hilarious. They admit they are not good for dates. There are spirits listed as early leaders in Egypt. Offering the king lists we now have to believe in the spooks!!? This is science? The chronology developed by Ian Shaw used the available evidence, and yes part of it is the kings list, but only where it can be validated, corrected, for periods where kings overlapped, and this limits it to the Pharaonic Period (c.3000—332 BC), and not to the "early leaders" of the pre-Pharaonic Period where spirits are listed. But it also used validation with the dates for the rising of the dog-star Sirius:
quote: The chronology was so well developed and accepted as valid that it was used to correct the early radiometric data and start the process of calibration of C14 dating. The issue at hand here is the correlation of C14 levels from artifacts in Old Kingdom tombs with the oak tree ring chronology. The Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) is well within the Pharaonic Period, as it follows the Early Dynastic Period (3000-2686 BC) with it's absolute dates. You asked
Message 861: By the way I see you mentioned Egypt, so show us a way to date ancient Egypt that does not in any way involve present nature decay rates?
Message 865: Do tell us what Shaw uses to date Egypt! These questions are answered. C14 was not used by Shaw, was not used to establish the Egyptian chronology for the period covering the artifacts in question, where their measured C14 levels correlate with measured C14 levels of the oak tree ring chronology, validating those ages. Your question is answered. Your task is to explain these correlations if they are in error. You have not done that, you have not even started to do that. Posting nonsense assertions does not explain the correlations. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You admit is used the king lists! Then you make some vague claim about only when validated! Ha. Show us an instance where dates were validated? So if you want to use the dog star, you need to fight tooth and nail to prove it was what you say and that it was indeed that way also in the post flood days. Nope. You asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates. I provided you with that information. The question to answer is not how the ages were developed, but why they correlate to the same ages with the measured C14 levels in the oak tree chronology for those ages by annual ring count.
It seems..cough cough...that you seek to sneak in dates from king lists or what star you believe was the dog star..etc...and then get some correlation in the C14. Nice try. Again, you asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates. I provided you with that information. The FACT that the levels of C14 found in wood artifacts from the Old Kingdom period match the levels of C14 found in the oak tree annual rings for the same age count means that they correlate for that age. The question you are not addressing is why such correlation exists. Your job is not to laugh at the information, but to explain how/why that correlation occurred if either system (or both) are erroneous. What is the mechanism that causes these to systems of measuring age to agree.
By the way, where are the close up pics and details about rings of a tree pre 4500 along with the C14 from then you seem to have forgotten to post? The older tree ages are measured with core samples, and they are kept in a lab. Dendrochronology is done by matching tree rings between samples of different ages. You want to see them then go to the source.
We wait. You can wait a long time. This is nothing but a desperate red-herring attempt to divert the thread from the issue of the correlations between age measurement systems. There are four independent dendrochronologies that span the time from the present to over 5,000 years ago, plus one single living tree where the core sample showed an age over 5,000 years. Those four dendrochronologies match each other for measured C14 levels at the same annual ring counts (the living tree has not been tested for C14 levels). We have also seen that there are correlations with historical dates to the same ages denoted by the tree rings for matching measured C14 levels. That is the evidence for these ages being valid absolute annual ages. They are valid because of the correlations, so if you question the age you have to explain the correlations. Your job is to explain the correlations. You haven't yet explained the correlations. You haven't yet even attempted to explain the correlations. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously this has nothing to do with age correlations, which you agree you cannot explain.
Please take this to another thread. Thanksby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
NOT FOR THIS THREAD
Go somewhere elseby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also? You asked what Ian Shaw used for his chronology to show it was not based of C14 dating. I showed you what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, and it is not C14 based. It does stand on it's own. Your question was answered. An honest person would acknowledge that. You have not shown that his chronology is in error. All you have done is dismiss it -- that is not any refutation of the chronology. Nor does it show he was in error. Fail.
The mere similarity of C14 from certain times does not mean dates. It means that whatever processes were at work left the patterns for various times. Curiously, I have not claimed dates, but actual factual measured present day levels of C14 in the tree rings and in the Egyptian artifacts. The FACT that they match shows that the tree rings and the artifacts are from the same time that left the patterns. That is the correlation. Why do they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they are not from the same time when "whatever processes were at work left the patterns" ... that is the question posed by the correlation. It doesn't matter what Ian Shaw used for his chronology, the issue is that it correlates to the tree rings by the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14. You have yet to explain the correlation if either chronology is wrong (why your mocking Shaw's chronology is irrelevant).
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc. That information is in the link provided to the paper on dating those artifacts (a peer reviewed scientific paper). If you want more detail then ask the authors of the paper.
So you failed to provide details of tree rings you bring up pre 4500. OK. You say...go to the source. The thing is unless you have the info why bring it up as if it supports your religious correlation efforts? Again, there are four different tree ring chronologies, two with Bristlecone pines from independent areas, and two with oak trees, one Irish and one German. They all run past 4500 years, and all four correlate for the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 for the counted ring annual ages with over 99% accuracy. These results are also in peer reviewed scientific papers, and if you want further details, then ask the authors of the papers.
You again mention the living tree, but show no details of the pre 4500 area. Why is that? Are they missing? You don't know what they contain..? The trees age was measured by coring, and reported in a peer reviewed paper. If you want further details, then ask the authors of the paper. And this whining sideshow is also irrelevant to the issue of the correlation: System A provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system ASystem B provides C14 measured level N at age X, by the evidence used in system B The evidence used in system A is entirely different from the evidence used in system B Nether system uses C14 levels to develop their age measurements Why do they both provide the same C14 measured level N at age X if they are wrong? You have not explained why they have the same actual factual measured present day levels of C14 if they don't come from the same time period. Why do they correlate if the time measurements are wrong. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But since you are talking about Egyptian artifacts, provide details. How many, where..etc. So let me repeat the data from Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote: So "We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). " ALL the dates correlate with the oak tree ring chronology:
quote: The artifacts are compared to the dendrochronology by matching the measured C14 levels and then comparing the tree ring age to the Egyptian chronology age.
You resorted to king lists. Joke. Who cares what correlates unless it stands on it's own also? From the same reference:
quote: Note that "the consensus chronology of Shaw" refers to a consensus among Egyptologists on these dates. These are the people in the best position to discuss the sources and accuracy of this chronology. If you want to argue about the dates, they are who you need to talk to. Now I'll just wrap up with the rest of Age of the Earth, Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems, Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:
quote: You still have not begun to address the issue of the correlations. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I don't agree it stands on it's own. ... You can disagree all you want to, you can spit into the wind and claim pigs fly, but it won't change the facts, nor will it explain the correlations. Sadly, for you, your personal opinion is worthless jibber-jabber in a debate against facts. It has also been shown that opinion is remarkably incapable of altering reality.
... The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims. And you have not shown that they are vague or incorrect. Another worthless claim.
Your unspecified artifacts supposed come from the same time. Rather than post some book, post the relevant quotes. I am not here to do your homework. OK let's look at this claim. Name the artifacts, and the data on C14 in them. You claim the artifacts are from what date? Oh look, I did yours -- again -- in Message 891, because it was easy.
Yes details on the living tree with rings past 4500 are needed. ... Not really, not when there are 4 dendrochronologies that extend beyond 4500 (years ago) and agree with each other with less than 0.2% error at 8,000 years ago.
... Get the relative info from your source, post it, and only provide the link for support, if any want to check. Don't spam links. So I'll just post it again, with more detail from the previous link provided .....
quote: Now the "Schulman's" tree(3) is the one that is 5,067 years old (in 2017), and the link says
quote: Note that (WPN-114) was cut down in 1964 and had rings from that date back to 4,844 years ago, so your tree with a 4,500 year old ring can be seen on this stump:
So the answers to your questions are available with little effort, what it takes is the will to find them. And this irrelevant nit-picking diversion into minutia details that are unimportant to the issue of correlations fails to address the correlations or show that the data is incorrect. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Looking at your pic/graph, I see it lists Hezikiah's tree ring tunnel. Too bad that was very post flood eh? Then the line continues...no details. Ha. Then you cite correlations going back to 700BC? Try dealing with 3000BC. Get on topic here. Your other pic is funny. You cite other possible matches...wiggle room...so I am sorry, but..GONG! As for artifacts matching C154 patterns, again, sorry, but whatever nature existed right after the flood would have left patterns. We can see you go fuzzy near that point and resort to wiggling and red lines. As I said, you have no other way but decay 'dating'. Then you cite the article and the 4700 years covered supposedly. That happens to be about the time of the flood. Add in the error of 1.9% they cite and we have some 85 years more to play with. Then we add in that the nature hange likely was about 106 years after the flood in the days of Peleg...and we have another 106 years to play with. Being so close to the nature change we must allow a possibility their fine artifacts were manufactured pre nature change! Your so called correlations crumble to dust. Once again we see you have absolutely nothing BUT one belief underpinning ALL your so called correlations. Curiously this babbling does not show any errors in the chronologies, nor does it deal with them having the same measured actual levels of C14 for the same age according to the chronologies. Using the actual C14 levels does not involve decay "dating" but objective empirical evidence. What you call "wiggle room" is the margin of error, and at only 1.9% it shows a strong correlation, one with high confidence in the precision of the age measurements. They correlate for the same age from two different chronologies, one Egyptian and one dendrochronological, the question for you is why. You have yet to provide any evidence for any change in nature in the past, so your arguments based of your fantasy are ... fantasy. You also have presented no evidence for a world wide flood. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the topic to present your evidence. I don't think you will, because there is none. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024