Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 284 of 357 (502805)
03-13-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


Re: Correlations
The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review:
Last I checked the Bristlecone pines are still there out in the open just waiting for someone to take core samples. Why don't creationists construct their own dendrochronologies and measure the 14C concentrations themselves? If the two data sets disagree then the creationists can raise a stink.
Also, the "dead wood" overlaps the living trees. This is done by comparing the thickness of the rings which form a very unique "bar code". This is due to annual variations in moisture and growing conditions.
Also, the ice flow models for GRIP and other cores are flawed. Here the problem is the model assumptions and the interpretation of the results.
If they are flawed then how is it that historically dated volcanic eruptions can be found in the correct layers? And if they are flawed how is it that the data from the ice cores matches both the tree ring denchronology and lake varves?
7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm), which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes.
For Lake Suigetsu, the layers are marked by alternating layers of diatoms. These are consistent with annual blooms during the warm months. Also, for the 14C calibration they measured the 14C concentration in insect and leaf debris from these layers. How does a flood produce alternating layers of diatoms and then sort leaves and insects by minute differences in their 14C content? That makes zero sense. Not only that, the lake varve data correlates with both tree ring and ice layer data. It is this consilience that you must explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 293 of 357 (502844)
03-13-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Well, I've seen a lot of claims here and a lot of "logical" deductions from those claims, but I see no compelling reason to think any of them are actually true since logic is only good when you reason from facts and not assumptions.
The facts are the 14C concentrations in relation to ring count, varve count, and ice layer count. They all correlate with each other. Those are the facts. You are throwing out the facts because they are inconvenient and contradictory to your religious beliefs.
just try to make off with any piece of bristlecone, and you may end up in jail.
Not if you ask for permission.
What is most telling about those who fall into these propaganda's is their official lack of respect for anyone who differs.
Lack of respect as in claiming that those who disagree with you are fudging their data?
Like I said, ONLY first hand evidence, or what we can agree IS first hand evidence is a valid basis for making deductions that must be logically true.
Science works through inference, not deduction. Also, would you throw out all forensic evidence in a murder case if there is no eyewitness? I wouldn't think you would, but this is exactly what you are arguing for.
I have often be the victum of uncritically accepting some piece of "evidence" only to find that it led to inconsistency, and later have to come back to question it and succeed in finding hole in it.
You haven't offered one solid reason why we should throw out this data. You haven't been able to explain why the tree ring, lake varve, and ice layer records give us the same exact data. You have not given us a mechanism that would cause all three of these records to be wrong in the same way. You have not been able to tell us how tree rings from two different continents produce the same data. YOu have not been able to tell us why lake varves from different continents produce the same data. You have not been able to tell us how ice layers from two different continents produce the same data.
Your only response is to act as if the data does not exist. That's not an honest way to go about things.
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.
I could invent a chronology right now that is 100% correlative with another made up chronology. So what? What we are talking about is something not written by men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 7:10 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 297 of 357 (502881)
03-13-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Generalizations are not evidence. Try presenting the evidence.
Try reading the opening post in this thread. All of the evidence is laid out in specific detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 7:10 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 10:52 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 300 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 10:53 PM Taq 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