Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:04 PM
807 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, funny, jar, JonF, Louis Morelli, ramoss, Sarah Bellum (8 members, 799 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
21222324Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 286 of 357 (502811)
03-13-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 12:36 AM


The actual explanation
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 12:36 AM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM NosyNed has responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3678 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 287 of 357 (502832)
03-13-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by NosyNed
03-13-2009 1:18 PM


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.

Case and point -- why should I believe YOU'all vs. what Brown says?: See: www.creationscience.com 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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by NosyNed, posted 03-13-2009 1:18 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 3:24 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 289 by Coragyps, posted 03-13-2009 3:31 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 3:44 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 292 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-13-2009 4:39 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 4:42 PM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 298 by Coyote, posted 03-13-2009 9:41 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 304 by anglagard, posted 03-14-2009 8:45 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 323 by NosyNed, posted 03-15-2009 4:28 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 288 of 357 (502836)
03-13-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Which section is the probability calculation in?

Thanks


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 3:42 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 289 of 357 (502837)
03-13-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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


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

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3678 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 290 of 357 (502838)
03-13-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Richard Townsend
03-13-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
quote:
Which section is the probability calculation in?
Thanks

http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page234.pdf
http://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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 3:24 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 291 of 357 (502839)
03-13-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
'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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 10:20 AM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1044 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 292 of 357 (502843)
03-13-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 2:56 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


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 responded

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

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3678 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 294 of 357 (502863)
03-13-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Taq
03-13-2009 4:42 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
quote:
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.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 4:42 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Coragyps, posted 03-13-2009 7:33 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 296 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-13-2009 7:34 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 9:08 PM Daniel4140 has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 295 of 357 (502867)
03-13-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 7:10 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1044 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 296 of 357 (502869)
03-13-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 7:10 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


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 responded

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 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 yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3678 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 299 of 357 (502897)
03-13-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Taq
03-13-2009 9:08 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 9:08 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2009 12:00 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3678 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 300 of 357 (502898)
03-13-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Taq
03-13-2009 9:08 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 9:08 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Tanndarr, posted 03-14-2009 12:03 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
21222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019