|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1430 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: Strawman argument. I do not need any missing rings. The issue is how fast trees grew in the past, not how many rings there are. If a tree grew for example in a few weeks and had 500 rings, we could not count the ring patterns for yearly cycles. Now if you have a positive claim that nature was the same, so that, therefore, trees had to grow at the same rates as today, fine. Present the proof. Otherwise, the patterns of rings and carbon isotopes cannot be interpreted as you would wish.They actually had to use to tree rings to calibrate and correct the carbon dating because it was WRONG!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I do not need any missing rings.
Cute. You skipped right over extra rings. You do need huge heaps of them. For which you haven't provided any evidence or physically possible mechanism. But like all YECs, you are ducking the important question, about which I was so specific. You neglected to explain why all those independent methods agree. Snowfall layers, radioactive decay rates of uranium, thorium, and carbon-14 by different mechanisms, tree rings, ice layers, speleothem growth, and varves; all involving different and independent processes, and all would have to be sped up in perfect lock step. Consilience. The fact that terrifies YECs.
If a tree grew for example in a few weeks and had 500 rings, we could not count the ring patterns for yearly cycles
Unless you have evidence for that actually happening, we'll ignore such unfounded speculation.
They actually had to use to tree rings to calibrate and correct the carbon dating because it was WRONG!
No measurement of any quantity is 100% exact. The curve I posted demonstrates that without any adjustment carbon dating is correct within 10% or less, many many orders of magnitude too small to help you. As I pointed out, scientists use several different and independent measurements, all of which agree closely enough to falsify your age claims, to increase the accuracy of carbon dating. The curves agree. If you can't explain why you got nuthin'. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote:Try to focus, I do not care how many rings there are. There is nothing added or missing. If a tree grew fast it still had rings, they just did not represent the same growing cycle time. quote: False. I duck nothing. If you use a blue crayon to color all evidences, all evidence will look blue. You use your same nature in the past belief to color all evidence so it looks old to you. Since you use the same belief to color evidences in many areas, they all get colored with your belief. That is the only consilience!
quote:Unless you have evidence for a same nature in the past we will ignore slow growth claimss. quote: Drawing a line or curve has no more meaning than the basis for the drawing. Your belief in a same nature in the past is the only basis, and you project it onto rings and carbon.
quote:They use ONE belief. They use this on different things. Any agreement is religious pi in the sky that has no reality to it. It is easy to misinterpret ratios, for example in two sets of isotopes and claim some agreement in imaginary time a billion years ago that never existed! Seriously??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Unless you have evidence for a same nature in the past we will ignore slow growth claimss.
I have provided that evidence and explained it in detail. I could explain in more detail, but you obviously wouldn't have any substantive response. You said you would always provide evidence for your claims. We knew that was false when you wrote it, and we have seen that we were right. You're just making up BS as you go along. You are far too ignorant to have any useful or interesting discussion with you. Bye-bye
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
dad writes: or not. A bit more detail might be helpful, including quoting the particular portion of the message you're addressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
dad writes: I will if you do. Your last three messages have been one sentence. This is a discussion board, not Twitter. Participation in the science forums assumes a familiarity with basic science. Threads on specific topics will not be turned into discussions of basic science. They will be kept on topic by moderators. But even the most basic science or scientific principle can be challenged. Simply propose new topics over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
And they are supported six ways from Sunday. Have you read this thread at all? If not, you're just speaking from a position of ignorance.
However, science claims must be supported in ways other than beliefs. dad writes:
That's the problem. It is not open to correction. Its mistakes can never be fixed. The main story of Noah and the flood has not changed."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
dad writes: The main story of Noah and the flood has not changed. I have the same reaction as JonF. Perhaps one of the Social and Religious Issues forums might be better suited for you. For example, take a look at Faith and Belief and Bible Study. Or you could propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics arguing that the Bible story of creation should be considered scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
That was in reply to this post
"There is no evidence of a change in nature,..." In other words there is no evidence nature was the same. --or not. Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Perhaps you and Jonf could do that since it was him who mentioned Noah and how there were many stories that were different about the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote:False. You provided a projected belief that you cannot discuss or defend that was used on tree rings and carbon decay, and then put on a graph. That is not evidence of anything except that you have a belief. Sorry if you though that was science in any real sense of the word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Yes I read lots in the thread. Beliefs beliefs beliefs presented as something else.
Then the mods step in predictably and cut off opposing belief based ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
And yet you can't explain away the correlations.
Beliefs beliefs beliefs presented as something else. dad writes:
Because "ideas" and/or beliefs do not address the correlations. Then the mods step in predictably and cut off opposing belief based ideas."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1362 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
I explained why using a preset belief (a same nature in the far past on earth) inevitably would yield similar wrong results across the board. Deal with it.
Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
The only "preset belief" here is yours. I explained why using a preset belief (a same nature in the far past on earth) inevitably would yield similar wrong results across the board. And you didn't come anywhere near "explaining" how completely independent methods could come up with exactly the same results.
dad writes:
You're the one who is trying to deal with hundreds of years of science done by thousands of scientists. Maybe you can fool yourself but you're not fooling anybody else. Deal with it."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024