Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1081 of 1498 (843277)
11-15-2018 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by RAZD
11-14-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
You are not in a position to be able to measure differences because you approach all things as if nature was the same! Tree rings for example.
If trees grew fast, then the rings in trees or furniture made from them...would NOT represent yearly cycles. Nor would C14 represent what it now does. The question is not how these things look to someone assuming nature was the same!! The question is whether you can prove it was or not.
I simply win if you can't prove the basis (nature) used in your models/claims. Once we establish science doesn't know....it all becomes a matter of belief. That is the name of the game.
quote:
Moving the goal posts again
Not at all.
You cited certain rings of a certain age and it is not moving any posts to get you to pony up some details here about those specific rings!
Your fail screams out at us.
quote:
you want to see C14
No. We need to see the specific data on the specific rings older than 4500. If you claim a C14 pattern there....show the rings from there, and some graph or something dealing with those rings that shows some pattern for C14 in THEM. If you claim dark/light/missing/etc rings, then let;s see the data for the rings older than 4500!? No allusions. Facts.
I notice they claim a recent pattern of darker rings in the pine trees, and are not sure why. I think they suspect warmer climate. Well, if those trees were there and growing at the time the mountains got heaved up/uplifted then one suspects the temp would change also for them!
quote:
Except that I only use the absolute known age from the rings that are there. The tree is obviously older because the early growth rings have been eroded away (look at the picture of the section and you will see there is no center
Great, so forget older then if it is missing.
When you claim an absolute number of rings exist right now, and claim stuff about the ones that are the oldest rings...I find it funny you have no proof? No pics. No data on the old/pre 4500 rings?
But even if you could come up with some support for your claims, if trees grew fast, it loses all meaning anyhow! In all ways you are hooped.
Let's say we had some dead trees with rings nearby the pines. Let's say they were hundreds of rings deep. Your belief system would simply add these to the age af the living tree, and do so by using the rings as being from a yearly/seasonal cycle!!
So if we had 4800 rings from the living tree, and say, seven hundred from dead trees in the vicinity, you would declare an age in this example of 5500 years worth of rings.
In reality if the dead trees grew in the former nature quickly, and the living tree started it's growth also in that former nature, we might have had all the rings in the dead trees and hundreds in the living tree...all grow in decades or years or a century..etc.
Your WHOLE case rests on a current nature existing. All your correlations rest on that one premise.
quote:
Nope. Not for the actual counted rings that are actual factual objective empirical evidence that is documented in several places and where the actual sections exist to verify those counts by anyone that wants to make a legitimate inquiry.
Since you provided no empirical pictures of the rings and no specific data, your case, by your own standard is illegitimate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2018 4:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2018 8:01 PM creation has replied
 Message 1083 by edge, posted 11-15-2018 8:34 PM creation has replied
 Message 1090 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2018 10:12 AM creation has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 1082 of 1498 (843285)
11-15-2018 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1081 by creation
11-15-2018 7:46 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
Creation, I’m really fairly certain that this whole issue of C14 dating does NOT, in actual fact, rest on whether or not a person who has studied it pretty extensively does, or does not, post some pictures you want to see on some corner of the Internet. I’m going to bet that the pictures you want were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal perhaps back when I was in high school. I’m pretty sure they didn’t make it on to the Internet then, but they did get into a library. ( That’s the big building that has a large herd of books inside, over there on the college campus.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:46 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1085 by creation, posted 11-16-2018 12:35 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 1097 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 1:42 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1083 of 1498 (843289)
11-15-2018 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1081 by creation
11-15-2018 7:46 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
Let's say we had some dead trees with rings nearby the pines. Let's say they were hundreds of rings deep. Your belief system would simply add these to the age af the living tree, and do so by using the rings as being from a yearly/seasonal cycle!!
So if we had 4800 rings from the living tree, and say, seven hundred from dead trees in the vicinity, you would declare an age in this example of 5500 years worth of rings.
Ummmmmmm, nooo ....
If this is your understanding of dendrochronology, it's back to high school for you.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:46 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1084 by creation, posted 11-16-2018 12:14 PM edge has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1084 of 1498 (843332)
11-16-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1083 by edge
11-15-2018 8:34 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
Well, assuming the patterns matched....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1083 by edge, posted 11-15-2018 8:34 PM edge has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1085 of 1498 (843340)
11-16-2018 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Coragyps
11-15-2018 8:01 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
Forget pics about carbon. Just show the exact pattern pertaining to only tree rings dating over 4500 years.
Looking at this site, I notice they seem to indicate that most tree ring C14 details are relatively recent.
"There is a little understanding about annual 14C variations in the past, with the exception of a few periods including the AD 774−775 14C excursion where annual measurements have been performed."
Just a moment...
I noticed in this article also something startling.
There was a short time around the time near the time when a nature change likely occurred that there is strong evidence for a definite spike in C14 variation levels!!!
(same link)
"From our measurements, it becomes clear that the marked increase in the IntCal13 data (5490−5460 BC) shows a very large change in annual resolution.
... Although the total 14C increment of the 5480 BC event is almost equal to the other minima (∼20), the 5480 BC event increases much faster than the others. Therefore, we expect that the origin of the 5480 BC event is apparently different from the other normal grand solar minima.
..To explain a rapid and large 14C increase, a dramatic decrease of the solar magnetism, or extreme SPEs, is necessary. Apart from these causes, changes in the geomagnetic field can also affect the GCR flux to Earth..
Whereas another galactic event, e.g., GCR flux increases for ∼10 y followed by a tail (a few decades), may explain the 5480 BC event, we do not know of any such event. Therefore, we hypothesize that plausible causes of this 5480 BC event are (i) special state of the grand solar minimum, (ii) successive extreme SPEs over ∼20 y, or (iii) a combination of some extreme SPEs and a normal grand solar minimum (or solar magnetic activities).
n any case, the 14C variation of the 5480 BC event indicates an unprecedented anomaly in solar activity compared to other periods."
So there was an unprecedented change in levels of C14 at a specific time. The reasons are not known, but some speculations based on the present nature realities are given in the article.
Amazing.
One should remember that if there was a change in nature, (possibly indicated by the unprecedented spike in C14 levels in tree rings of the pines) that we cannot use the dates derived from yearly tree ring cycles. The tree rings before the change could have grown fast in the former nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2018 8:01 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by Phat, posted 11-16-2018 12:40 PM creation has replied
 Message 1087 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-16-2018 12:53 PM creation has replied
 Message 1092 by Coragyps, posted 11-17-2018 1:06 PM creation has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 1086 of 1498 (843341)
11-16-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by creation
11-16-2018 12:35 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
Sounds to me that you are simply looking for validations of your preconceived belief anyway.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by creation, posted 11-16-2018 12:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1098 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 1:44 PM Phat has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 1087 of 1498 (843342)
11-16-2018 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by creation
11-16-2018 12:35 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
One should remember that if there was a change in nature, (possibly indicated by the unprecedented spike in C14 levels in tree rings of the pines) that we cannot use the dates derived from yearly tree ring cycles. The tree rings before the change could have grown fast in the former nature.
You are the only one who needs to remember this since you made this all up and no one else sees any evidence of your imaginary "former nature".
You will never convince anyone to even notice your fantasy until you have irrefutable evidence that changes in "nature" have occurred.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by creation, posted 11-16-2018 12:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1096 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 1:40 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1088 of 1498 (843345)
11-16-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1080 by creation
11-15-2018 7:21 PM


Re: Many floods, but no World Wide Flood
Do you have a point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:21 PM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1089 of 1498 (843379)
11-17-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1080 by creation
11-15-2018 7:21 PM


Wrong on Dino DNA and can't admit it. Sad.
From YOUR link
" The decay kinetics have been measured by accelerated aging experiments further displaying the strong influence of storage temperature and humidity on DNA decay.[28] Nuclear DNA degrades at least twice as fast as mtDNA. As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, may have stemmed from contamination of the sample."
But that doesn't relate to the egg DNA in the paper.
Furthermore, your comment was (Message 1060):
... Notice no DNA from dinos or the time before the flood? ...
So whether or not the DNA is degraded, your comment is shown to be false.
Now you are moving the goalposts rather than acknowledging that your comment was in error. That is not debating in good faith, and this further pursuit of misunderstood small details just provides more evidence that you do not have any objective empirical evidence to support your assertions.
Also see Message 1274 of Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? for some discussion of DNA from pre 4,500 years ago regarding humans, neanderthals and chimps.
It is interesting, since this thread is about correlations, to see that the fossil record and the DNA record correlate for the descent of humans, neanterthals and chimps from common ancestors at two points in the past:
quote:
Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced
DNA Signatures Found in Present-Day Europeans and Asians, But Not In Africans
"The genomic calculations showed good correlation with the fossil record," said coauthor Jim Mullikin, Ph.D., an NHGRI computational geneticist and acting director of the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center. "According to our results, the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans went their separate ways about 400,000 years ago."
Again, there is no rational reason for such correlation of two entirely different approaches to occur unless they both are correct.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:21 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 12:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1090 of 1498 (843380)
11-17-2018 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by creation
11-15-2018 7:46 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 5, fantasy 0
You are not in a position to be able to measure differences because you approach all things as if nature was the same! Tree rings for example.
Your personal opinion is not worth the bandwidth wasted to post it. It is not evidence of anything but possible delusion.
If trees grew fast, then the rings in trees or furniture made from them...would NOT represent yearly cycles. Nor would C14 represent what it now does. The question is not how these things look to someone assuming nature was the same!! The question is whether you can prove it was or not.
You have not provided any evidence that the tree rings grew fast, that is just a hypothetical concept you have made up to suit your beliefs, it is not scientific. The FACT that all the evidence in the world, from all the different branches of science, shows that nature has not changed significantly over large periods of geological time is evidence enough that it is not necessary to incorporate any unfounded fantasy of "former nature" in our pursuit of knowledge. Science is based on facts/evidence rather than fantasy.
This "fast growth" fantasy does not explain the correlations of C14 and rings. Why should they both change in such synchrony, and why should the Bristlecone pines correlate with the Irish oaks and the German oaks, and why should the C14 have peaks that correlate with the 11 year sunspot activity cycle.
You have been told before that tree rings have distinct sections that correlate with the seasons of growth and stasis, and have not provided an explanation for how these patterns are made by fast growth. When we look at actual trees that grow fast we see two patterns: (1) no multiple growth rings in a year but wide growth rings for each year, and (2) multiple rings caused by weather stress that show large growth cells during low stress and small growth cells during stress periods ... but no marker of stasis except at the terminus of the annual growth.
IE fast growth does not form multiple rings that replicate annual growth rings.
You have been told how many rings you need to form for your fantasy to have a ghost of a chance of possibly replicating the dendrochronological history -- and at around 4 minutes a ring it becomes ridiculous to consider how you could possible pack in the C14 variations in perfect synchrony around the world along with the climate variations that are shown by the evidence in the rings. There is no recorded documentation of the kinds of variations that would be necessary to cause such ring formation in such short a time period in perfect synchrony around the world.
It's a ridiculous, unworkable, worthless premise.
Not at all.
You cited certain rings of a certain age and it is not moving any posts to get you to pony up some details here about those specific rings!
Your fail screams out at us.
No. We need to see the specific data on the specific rings older than 4500. If you claim a C14 pattern there....show the rings from there, and some graph or something dealing with those rings that shows some pattern for C14 in THEM. If you claim dark/light/missing/etc rings, then let;s see the data for the rings older than 4500!? No allusions. Facts.
Says the person who apparently cannot "pony up" a single piece of evidence for a single detail of his assertions and has not supplied a single fact.
You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: we know it is there. This is the same diversionary tactic as on the Prometeus ring evidence. It gets you nowhere but wasted bandwidth.
You have been shown the correlation data before, it is also shown in Message 4:
quote:
These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":
404 Page not found (9)
quote:

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:
  • If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
  • The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
  • The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

Conclusions

The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.
Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.
While it is possible for samples of slightly different ages to have the same carbon-14 content (due to the variation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere over time), it is not possible for samples to be the same age and have different carbon-14 content.
False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.
False (and missing) tree-rings are readily identified by dendrochronologists due to their differences from real annual tree-rings, and this has already been done for the dendrochronologies presented: there are no massive numbers of false rings in any of the data.
Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis. This is highly unlikely to be done.
The logical conclusion is that this confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.
That graph documents the actual measured C14 content (converted by math into a "C14 age" based on the Libby decay rate originally used in C14 dating) against the tree rings (converted to actual age because annual rings).
The comments following the graph pertain to your assertions and why those assertions are wrong.
Great, so forget older then if it is missing.
And you have been told that those missing rings are not included in the age used. It appears you don't learn a single thing from what you have been told.
Let's say we had some dead trees with rings nearby the pines. Let's say they were hundreds of rings deep. Your belief system would simply add these to the age af the living tree, and do so by using the rings as being from a yearly/seasonal cycle!!
So if we had 4800 rings from the living tree, and say, seven hundred from dead trees in the vicinity, you would declare an age in this example of 5500 years worth of rings.
Your understanding of the field of dendrochronology is pathetic in it's vapidness, especially when it is explained in simple terms a school child can understand in this thread. See Message 2. The annual rings have markers that show the seasonal growth patterns and the stasis point for the end of each annual ring. Each ring also contains climate data and that results in different width rings that can be matched from one sample to the next to align them in chronological order.
The FACT that the two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies match ring for ring for all but two (2) rings in over 5,000 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology.
The FACT that the two independent Oak chronologies match ring for ring for all but 99.5% of rings in over 10,434 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology.
The FACT that the two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies AND the two independent Oak chronologies match ring for ring for 99.5% of rings in over 8,000 years worth of rings, shows that it is not just adding on scraps of wood to create a chronology.
You don't appear to understand what evidence is, nor how it is actually used in science, and your skimming of information looking for anomalous or seemingly missing details does not make any kind of refutation of the evidence nor of what that evidence shows.
Nor do you understand how the correlations work to strengthen each other
Making up alternate reality fantasy does not refute the evidence.
In reality if the dead trees grew in the former nature quickly, and the living tree started it's growth also in that former nature, we might have had all the rings in the dead trees and hundreds in the living tree...all grow in decades or years or a century..etc.
In reality there is absolutely no evidence of any "former nature" and no evidence of any change in nature, so any comments related to this vacuous concept are gob-slobbering drivel.
Pony up your evidence or -- by it's absence, admit you have none.
Since you provided no empirical pictures of the rings and no specific data, your case, by your own standard is illegitimate!
Says the person who apparently cannot "pony up" a single piece of evidence for a single detail of his assertions and has not supplied a single fact.
You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: everyone else knows it is there. This is the same diversionary tactic as on the Prometheus ring evidence. It got you nowhere but wasted bandwidth.
You cannot explain the correlations by nit-picking the evidence, and the sooner you realize this the sooner you can start contributing more than a bad example of creationist debate behavior to this thread.
As it sits, you are just another creationist that has failed to explain the correlations.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:46 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1094 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 1:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1095 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 1:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1091 of 1498 (843407)
11-17-2018 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1089 by RAZD
11-17-2018 9:04 AM


Re: Wrong on Dino DNA and can't admit it. Sad.
If DNA is claimed, but it is supposedly degraded, how is that going to qualify as modern DNA we can look at and learn from? What sample exactly from what egg where dated when are you talking about, and how much DNA was there, and what do you think it tells us?
It is news to me if there is DNA from the pre KT era. Let's see what it is like! How much do we have from how many samples?
So far it seems like we have some extremely limited sample that is not in any sort of shape to really tell us much?! Ha
In any discussion of DNA from Neanderthals or chimps...etc...we must look at when they lived. You claiming it was past 4500 years is a purely religious statement based exclusively on a belief in a same nature in the past. The so called dates are no better than that belief. The actual dates are quite different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1089 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2018 9:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-17-2018 1:15 PM creation has not replied
 Message 1113 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2018 7:07 AM creation has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 1092 of 1498 (843409)
11-17-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by creation
11-16-2018 12:35 PM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 4 fantasy 0
I don’t know if you noticed, but 5480 is a larger number than 4500.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by creation, posted 11-16-2018 12:35 PM creation has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1093 of 1498 (843410)
11-17-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1091 by creation
11-17-2018 12:57 PM


Re: Wrong on Dino DNA and can't admit it. Sad.
You claiming it was past 4500 years is a purely religious statement based exclusively on a belief in a same nature in the past.
It is good to see that you agree that religious statements can never be trusted.
The so called dates are no better than that belief. The actual dates are quite different.
Your so called bullshit turns out to be actual bullshit. Surprise, surprise!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by creation, posted 11-17-2018 12:57 PM creation has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1094 of 1498 (843411)
11-17-2018 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1090 by RAZD
11-17-2018 10:12 AM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 5, fantasy 0
double post
Edited by creation, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2018 10:12 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1095 of 1498 (843412)
11-17-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1090 by RAZD
11-17-2018 10:12 AM


Re: Prometheus evidence vs fantasy, Prometheus 5, fantasy 0
quote:
Your personal opinion is..
It is not my opinion that science uses a same state past basis for models. Nor is it my opinion history and the bible indicate great differences in the past on earth.
It is your opinion/belief that no other beliefs are allowed or matter regarding tree rings. Gong!
You have not provided any evidence the trees grew slow!!! You just assumed and believed blindly. The same way you assume and blindly believe in your one belief in all other areas!! The fact you turn around and try to conflate/confuse/combine several areas of evidence with that sole belief and have the unmitigated gall to try and call this exercise in religious fanaticism 'correlations ' is appalling.
You have been told before that any dark/light patterns in very old pines (which you failed to even be able to show us at all) if grown in the former nature and fast, obviously would not represent seasons of the year.
You know NOTHING about what processes were involved or even if there was photosynthesis in place at the time...etc etc so you cannot tell us that dark/light patterns at that time had to represent seasons! You are talking out your hat.
quote:
You have been told where the evidence is recorded, and that is sufficient: we know it is there.
?? No. We do not know any details about the older than 4500 tree rings of the pines from your posts. Did I miss something? Tell us about THOSE rings...details please! Ha.
You appeal to blind unquestioning faith alone, and have used the disguise of science in doing so! You are now busted.
You show a graph that lumps all the rings together. Let's see JUST the data for the pre 4500 'year' old rings!!!! Nothing else matters.
quote:
This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples
Great, so let's see the C14 info for the rings pre 4500!!
The link I posted suggests that most C14 details in trees are from the more recent times ( ..to ..several hundred years BC)
quote:
Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.
We have no idea HOW C14 was 'gotten' in the former nature. Once again you seek to impose current nature realities onto the unknown nature in the past...for no apparent reason.
quote:
it is not possible for samples to be the same age and have different carbon-14 content.
No one says that several hundred rings from both nearby dead trees, and the innermost core of living trees are from the same time!! Canard. Strawman.
Fast growing trees with hundreds of rings could, however represent decades or a century...etc!
Therefore, the rings from the so called 5400BC in my link could represent trees mere decades before the time of the early bristlecone pines!
In other words the actual dates for the so called 5400BC rings could be closer to 4500 years.
As for false/missing rings, please do not tell us what former nature trees would do! How would you know? Your on trick religious pony is to attribute current nature features to the old trees by faith!!
quote:
That graph documents the actual measured C14 content (converted by math into a "C14 age" based on the Libby decay rate originally used in C14 dating) against the tree rings (converted to actual age because annual rings).
You cannot convert anything because of annual rings!! (unless there was annual rings).
Now...if you want to post actual content of actual rings pre 4500 let's see the data! How would we accept that your graph looked at all rings, rather than some sort of averaging scheme? Let's see the goods.
quote:
The annual rings have markers that show the seasonal growth patterns and the stasis point for the end of each annual ring. Each ring also contains climate data and that results in different width rings that can be matched from one sample to the next to align them in chronological order.
Two points.
1) Let's see the markers for the pre 4500 year rings then!!
2) Remember that any patterns in trees grown in the former state do not equal patterns in this nature. What grows in a summer here, for example, might have grown in the cool of the day there for all we know.
Lurkers
Notice that he did not even address the evidence about a historically unprecedented spike in C14 levels in the days of the bristlecone pin tree rings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha.
Hoo ha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2018 10:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1101 by lasthero, posted 11-17-2018 4:31 PM creation has replied
 Message 1103 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2018 1:08 AM creation has replied
 Message 1104 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2018 1:08 AM creation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024