|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It appears Daniel, that you are saying IF the published information is correct then the Earth is actually old.
The reason you think it is incorrect seems to be only one of two choices:1) the researchers are incompetent 2) the researchers are lying or deluding themselves Is this correct? Is this all you have to offer or is there more? Since the information is, in fact, available to young earthers why haven't they shown, in detail, at a publishable level of quality how the research is wrong. We've read what they have published and it doesn't begin to tackle all the issues; not even half of them. Why is that? Is it perhaps because they are the ones who are 1) or 2) from above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
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.
Case and point -- why should I believe YOU'all vs. what Brown says?: See: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood Have any of you read his chapter on the Grand Canyon? An honest person will have to admit it is more credible than any evolutionary explanation. Case and point2: just try to make off with any piece of bristlecone, and you may end up in jail. (So you see, my personal knowledge of forest service regs demonstrates why anyone without that knowledge should not ASSUME that they can trust what is said here.). Case and point: Brown was closely connected with AZU and was on good terms with people there, so he has more credibility than those who say he is a nut without proving it. My knowledge of who his teacher was says a lot for him. And yes, the pychosis of the evolutionary community lends itself to mass distortion of the the facts. Nothing is new in history. The Soviets had their propaganda too, and so the Nazi's. The "official" "published" truth is always part lies, and with many a regime, the main point was the lie. What is most telling about those who fall into these propaganda's is their official lack of respect for anyone who differs. A degree these days does not just indicate competence in scientific research. It also usually means one is an approved and vetted promoter of the establisment religion of the evolutionary worldview. 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. 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. Finally, I don't have to investigate or disprove every other argument put up to know the truth. I only have to prove one major truth, and logically reason from it that it contradicts all the other contenders. 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. Edited by Daniel4140, : formatting Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Which section is the probability calculation in?
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 724 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Have any of you read his chapter on the Grand Canyon? An honest person will have to admit it is more credible than any evolutionary explanation. I'm pretty dang honest, and I don't have to admit any such thing. Since Walt ignores essentially all the geology associated with the place, he tends to lose just a mite of credibility.
Case and point -- why should I believe YOU'all vs. what Brown says? 'Cause the laws of physics are on our side and not his. Edited by Coragyps, : addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page234.pdfhttp://www.torahtimes.org/book/page235.pdf Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Edited by Daniel4140, : added reason for links Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
'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 don't understand your methodology atall - what does the chance of 1/7 represent? Why is there a chance? Edited by Richard Townsend, : have read Daniel's pages
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2839 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Have any of you read his chapter on the Grand Canyon? An honest person will have to admit it is more credible than any evolutionary explanation.
Oh certainly, but I didn't find any mention of where earth's drain plug is located...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9944 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: Generalizations are not evidence. Try presenting the evidence. Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 724 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Try presenting the evidence. Try reading the first post in this thread, Daniel. RAZD has already taken care of giving you enough evidence to spend a week on. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2839 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hey Daniel,
I think Brown in putting together his flood model got carried away with the idea of water lensing and liquefaction due to the huge waves created by tectonic activity that he completely forgot about poor Noah and company in that ark. This may be the result of compartmentalized thinking, not sure though. How exactly would any boat survive the kind of wave action he is proposing.Where is that evidence? Oh right we're here, so he must have made it... Maybe some evidence of the computer simulations he ran and the results would be helpful, instead of his generalizations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9944 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The original post????
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. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
The original post????
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. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024