Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 298 of 357 (502889)
03-13-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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.
I haven't followed any link to any "proof." If you have proof you should bring it here.
But lets just start off small: provide us with your proof of a global flood at the appointed time of about 4,350 years ago. Once you do that we can move on.
That should be easy. That flood would have left evidence everywhere, including my back yard. Every archaeologist around should be able to find evidence of the flood, as it was such a recent, and huge, event.
So go for it! Knock yourself out. Lets see all of your evidence for that flood.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 301 of 357 (502904)
03-14-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 10:52 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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.
But you're willing to believe in the mythical flood, which has no such data.
You're peddlin' religion, not science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 10:52 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 353 of 357 (503646)
03-20-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Daniel4140
03-20-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Why do they correlate?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Daniel4140, posted 03-20-2009 8:47 PM Daniel4140 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