Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, jar, PaulK (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/0


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 392 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 yet responded

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3469 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 302 of 357 (502905)
03-14-2009 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 10:53 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.

Did you happen to notice all those little citation and link thingies in the OP? Where RAZD links back to articles and actual studies where you can see the evidence supporting his position for yourself?

Now that you've been directed to all the actual data as you requested, I'm sure you'll actually go read it and come back here with real arguments that address the points in the OP. All you've tried to do here is hand-wave them away and pretend they aren't good enough for you. Either refute the arguments presented with evidence at least as good or expect to be laughed at; although I suspect you're used to that by now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 10:53 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 303 of 357 (502932)
03-14-2009 10:04 AM


Plenty of data online
Raw tree ring data, and links to analysis programs, is online at The International Tree-Ring Data Bank. No problem finding out about the statistical methods there!

Raw ice core data is available at The Ice Core Gateway, with references with which you can easily track down the analysis methods.

Ever so much more accurate than pictures!

Great graphs of data relevant to 14C dating and tons of references at CalPal - University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package: CALIBRATION DATA SETS (part of CalPal Manual and Help).

Cue next feeble excuse…

Oh, and:

I know this, because where I have been able to check into details in the journals (if you dig deep enough) the influence of the assumptions and philosophy are revealed.

Thanks for the laugh. We are experienced anough to see that you've never dug into any details in any journals; all you know your read on fourth-hand creationist websites.

If the investigator "believes" a sample falls in a certain age range, and it doesn't, then some exucse -- contamination, etc., geological activity, or other ad hoc assumption is made to dismiss the date.

Of course you don't have any examples.

The USGS has a dating lab at Menlo Park, California, that's been running for 40 years or more. It's had a state-of-the-art SHRIMP-II for years. Since that's a government agency, you can ask them for all their equipment records, or even demand them with a FOIA submission. Then you can cross- correlate the records of tests with publications and see what tests were run and not published. (If the evil USGS is redcacting the data, you'd see the suspiciously large equiment idle time). No need to thank me here, just acknowlege me in a footnote when you publish.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM JonF has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 304 of 357 (502979)
03-14-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Use evidence I can agree with
Just want to let you know that the crowd over at Dreamcatcher are having a lot of fun at your expense for using the subtitle "Use evidence I can agree with."

FSTDT fodder indeed.

Signing up is free if you want to defend any honor you may think you have against those who are currently ROTFLOL.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


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 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 305 of 357 (502984)
03-15-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by JonF
03-14-2009 10:04 AM


Re: Plenty of data online

You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher.
Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions.
And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax.
But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.
Meanwhile, all my data for the correlations in biblical chronology is online at the link below. It is freely accessable. All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments. But as long as you pussy foot around and fail to deliver the data your theory is as good as non-fasifiable.


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 303 by JonF, posted 03-14-2009 10:04 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 12:30 AM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 310 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2009 6:11 AM Daniel4140 has responded
 Message 311 by Coragyps, posted 03-15-2009 6:14 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 312 by mark24, posted 03-15-2009 8:06 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 313 by JonF, posted 03-15-2009 8:37 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 314 by AdminModulous, posted 03-15-2009 8:40 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 315 by NosyNed, posted 03-15-2009 9:15 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6668
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 306 of 357 (502987)
03-15-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
WOW!!!!

Classic creationist BS. Not willing to do any research. Not willing to believe scientists, but more than willing to believe ancient mythology.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:42 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 307 of 357 (502989)
03-15-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Theodoric
03-15-2009 12:30 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
Provide the data I requested in my previous post. Insults are not data, just further confirmation that you have none.


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 306 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 12:30 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 2:24 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 309 by anglagard, posted 03-15-2009 3:18 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6668
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 308 of 357 (502991)
03-15-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:42 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
JonF provided you with the info as to how to access the data. It is your choice to be too afraid to look at it.

Learning and knowledge take work. If you want to be spoon fed then go to a creationist website.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:42 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 309 of 357 (502992)
03-15-2009 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:42 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
Daniel4140 writes:

Provide the data I requested in my previous post. Insults are not data, just further confirmation that you have none.

The data is there, what is absent is your desire to learn anything outside of your little box as that may require some minimal effort on your part.

As you clearly stated as a true and unquestioning Right Wing Authoritarian, "use evidence I can agree with."

Well guess what little godlet, the rest of the universe does not revolve around your lazy, and apparently permanent, ignorance.

Remember, we can and do read your sources, but it seems you will always find some lame excuse to never read ours.

How predictable.

Edited by anglagard, : left the t out of predictable.

Edited by anglagard, : Separate last sentence for emphasis

Edited by anglagard, : Better English


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:42 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 310 of 357 (502995)
03-15-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
quote:
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher.
Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions.
And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax.
But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.

A number of scientific papers relating to radiocarbon calibration (matching radiocarbon ot tree rings, varves, speleothems, etc) are here:
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume46/Number3/

The paper starting at page 1029 provides a good overview. The one starting at p. 1093 details the statistical methods that are used. The one starting at p. 1111 gives some details of tree rings back to ~12,000 years.

But I'm sure this will not satisfy you. You don't seem to understand how science is done. Scientists rarely (if ever) publish the "raw data" that you are demanding to see. It is ridiculous to ask for "all the research notes" or "a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher."

Publishing all of the raw data would be unworkable; a three page paper would expand to 300 pages and no one could sort through it. If another researcher is suspicious of some part of the analysis he may contact the authors directly and ask specific questions (not "show me all of your raw data", but specific questions about the procedures used). More commonly, a suspicious scientist will repeat everything himself; he will gather his own data and do his own measurements and analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 10:11 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 311 of 357 (502996)
03-15-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
Meanwhile, all my data for the correlations in biblical chronology is online at the link below. It is freely accessable. All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts.

But not a single certified copy of a birth certificate, or a last-known address for any of the people you chronologize from! How can I trust anything you write when you won't back any of it up?

You're being silly, Daniel.

We must reasonable rule out a hoax.

Make that "way past silly."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3482 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 312 of 357 (503004)
03-15-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
Daniel,

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.

And...

You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is

So let's get this straight, you came to a young earth conclusion without meeting your own standard of evidence? That is, your standard is reading research papers & you failed to do so in coming to your conclusion.

It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments.

And yet....

since logic is only good when you reason from facts and not assumptions

Your assumption is that these people actually exist, where is your evidence? Please direct me to the original research papers that provide independent evidence that would allow me to conclude these individuals exist. You then have to show they lived as long as they did, & actually that x begat y. & of course, it all comes to naught if you can't show that Adam was the first human. Then you have to show that even if he was the first human, that there wasn't huge amounts of geological time that predated him.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to, anything else is hypocrisy.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 313 of 357 (503006)
03-15-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Plenty of data online
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites.

Sorry, sonny, I provided links that go straight to the sites containing the raw data. I'm not going to extract the hundreds of links to the data dfor you. Hint: at the tree ring site, click "List of tree ring data by title and investigator".

To understand and/or anallyze the data, you are going to have to invest some of your own effort. You think there's a problem with the analyses, you do the work rewuired to demonstrate the problems.

I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core.

At the links I provided.

I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches

At the links I provided.

But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.

At the links I provided.For example,. here's a link to a typiucal raw data file from the rtree ring page:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/measurements/southamerica/arge056.rwl

And the correlation stats:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/measurements/correlation-stats/arge056.txt

There's lots of thos files, from different invesstigators covering different samples. All linked to from the pages I provided.

All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments

I see that the author is a Wlat-Brown-continents-swooping-like-drunken-ballerinas loon. And he claims that all sedimehntary layers were formed during the Fludde, refrencing Berthault. That's all we need to conclude that it's BS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 314 of 357 (503008)
03-15-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Topic
I'm beginning to spot a pattern. Biblical chronology is not the topic here. It is rarely the topic, no matter how hard you try and shoehorn it in. Please, everybody, cease discussing Biblical chronology in this thread. ONLY posts concerning the topic from here on in.

Daniel, if after I post this I see you trying to squeeze a reference to your website and your Biblical chronologies into an inappropriate thread, I will assume you are a sophisticated spammer and suspend you indefinitely. This is your only warning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 315 of 357 (503010)
03-15-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:13 AM


Checking the Data
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher.
Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions.
And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax.
But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.
Meanwhile, all my data for the correlations in biblical chronology is online at the link below. It is freely accessable. All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments. But as long as you pussy foot around and fail to deliver the data your theory is as good as non-fasifiable.

It is obvious too big a task for you to fully analyze all the data as it is for me. You don't have the time, inclination or skills to do it.

However, it is obvious that if the problem exists as you think the scientists of ICR and AIG and such would be happy to take the data and check it as you suggest. In fact, they have had decades to do so.

But, to my knowledge, they haven't published the results of such an examination. I've seen the arm waving silliness they do publish. Please point me to the real examination they have done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:13 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019