Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
145 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 90 (405602)
06-13-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
06-13-2007 5:43 AM


Data Questioned.

Reminder: "This is in Faith & Belief forum, so you have the most lax level of criteria for providing substantiation and validation for your position."

This, I noticed is somehow in the science area? I do not plan to limit things to just the limits of natural science.

quote:
Do you (a) have any problem with this data or (b) any evidence that it is false?

Yes! I have no reason to believe that trees did not grow at a much faster rate, as it seems the bible indicates, in the past.

Therefore, the rings do not represent years, at all, as we get closer to the time of the flood. Now, yes, of course, they do.

Edited by keys, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 5:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-13-2007 10:04 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2007 5:44 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 90 (405827)
06-15-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
06-14-2007 5:44 AM


Re: Data Questioned.
quote:
You realize that trees growing at a faster rate would not add tree rings, but would make each of the rings wider? This is demonstrable with a single species growing in different areas and is part of the science of

The rings are caused by the difference between winter and summer growth patterns, not by the actual climate existing in each season. The evidence of the tree rings is that there was some variation, from the little ice age to the medieval warm period, both recorded in the tree rings right on time.


You assume that they grew in the present conditions, and under the present laws. Why would we assume that? If the bible indicates that light was different, and tree rate growth, why would anyone doubt it for no reason? This was talking about a long time ago, not now.

quote:
The tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the science of dendrochronology take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves).

Why would tree rings NOT match? The only real question is what went on in the early part of it's growth.

quote:
Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.

No need to, unless there was some evidence that the past laws and world had to have been under the same laws. Yes, we could even ask if gravity really needed to be the same. Basically, we don't really know. So, why not assume the differences in the bible past were real?

quote:
The climate data from these two trees show that there was no significant change in the rate of growth for these trees during their lives, so IF trees grew at a greater rate in a biblical past period THEN this period has not been reached yet. There was also no global flood in this period as both trees continued to live.

I think I covered the tree ring issue. On a side note here, I might ask if you ever actually saw tree rings from the early part of the real old white pines? Could we really say that there may not have come a change in the world there? I have never seen any pictures of that. Never met anyone that did.

quote:
That is fine, this is a great debate and we can between us agree on the limits of evidence. It does not matter to me what you bring in for evidence at this point, just to note that what ever argument you make must agree with all the evidence in some coherent way.

That is easy.

Edited by keys, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2007 5:44 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2007 5:55 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 90 (406003)
06-15-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
06-15-2007 5:55 AM


Re: Data Questioned.
quote:
You still have not provided a reason for growing a different number of tree rings, just a reason for having different width tree rings, a concept that is falsified by the tree rings.

No, you misunderstand. If a tree used to be able to grow in a month, or some such short time, it had all the rings it needed, The rings never represented years, of course.

quote:
We DON'T assume they grew in the present condition, but look at the tree rings to SEE the condition they grew in: some of those were noticeably different from today.

Ahh. Correction, you do so assume that. You look to the tree, to see the size and traits of the rings, which you assume mean certain things, based on only how they now grow. Absolutely.

quote:
One of these is the "Little Ice Age" and another is the "Medieval Warm Period"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum


Not really that relevant, because this is after the period of the flood. I expect present rates were in effect.

quote:
Both of these occurred in historical times and the tree rings show their effect right on time, validating the widths of the rings as climate markers btw. As we go further with the data we will come to other climate changes that extend beyond the historical record, however with these trees we have not gone back to times before recorded history, so there is no need to assume something NOT in recorded history.

In other words, as we see similar rings beyond the range of the present growth rates, you assume they are the same. No good. There has to be a reason. Evidence.

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

quote:Recorded history can be defined as history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language, whereas history is a more general term referring simply to information about the past.[1] It starts in the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.

That's older than these trees eh?



No! Your dates for recorded history are also assumptions. I assume that the recording started after the flood.

quote:
No need to, unless there was some evidence that the past laws and world had to have been under the same laws.

False. That assume that all we need do is assume that they were the same for no reason. Unless you can prove that, you have no claim at all.

quote:
This is just wishful thinking and still fails to address the NUMBER of rings. Propose a theory make a prediction based on it that can be tested for how and why it would be different. It should provide a means then to correct the laws for different behavior in the past: one of these has to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun. Calling "woo" thinking evidence is delusion.
Why correct laws??? Why must they be here to begin with??? The number of rings is of no concern whatsoever if a tree could grow in maybe a week or so.

quote:
Ignorance is bliss eh? Try talking to Dendrochronologists. Try going to the White Pine Mountains: the Prometheus site can be visited and you can look at the tree stump.

I don't mean the stump. I mean a close up picture of the earliest rings in that stump. It seems to be that you are also ignorant of these. However blissful you think that may be.

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagerometheus_tree1.jpg

I looked at your link, and saw this.

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." ??

quote:
So far all you have done is ignored the evidence, not deal with it. Tree rings are annual effects of the orbit of the earth around the sun, not of vast and wonderous mythical climate changes wrought by wonderous woo, concepts that you have absolutely NO evidence for from any source other than wishful thinking. Remember denial of evidence is not faith, it is:

Deal with this, present growth does not relate to the past earth growth, unless you have some proof it was the same. Woo can't help you. Try and deal in facts, reality, real relevant evidence, and proof. Making up things like woo does not help your case.

quote:
Seeing as you have presented NO reason why tree rings should be different in the past we will proceed with the next bit of evidence, the full dendrochronology based on the bristlecone pines:

Sounds good to me, soon as you present, of course, proof that tree rings should be the same in the past. We wait for this.

quote:
Note that this data ALONE invalidates the age given in the museum and it invalidates the concept that a global flood could have occurred in that time, which was the purpose of this thread: QED.

Note that this unbased assumption of the present being the key to the past is not supported in any way.

quote:
This is only ONE piece of evidence. I have more if you care to keep playing.

Well, I was hoping to move on, and maybe corner you so you would have to call up your brother for advice on space, and physics, etc. As it is, all you offer is a claim that trees grew at the same rate for no apparent good reason but that they do so now. If you want to limit the scope of the debate here to NOW, fine. You have a valid point. If you want to take this to the early creation era, why, you had better come up with reasons, and evidences that it had to have also applied then.

You can't just wish it so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2007 5:55 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2007 6:39 AM simple has responded
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2007 9:07 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 90 (406106)
06-17-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
06-16-2007 6:39 AM


Refutations Dismissed Firmly
quote:
You still do not get it. Growth has nothing to do with rings, rings are caused by the orbit of the earth around the sun and the change of seasons that result. Having all the resources to grow in one month what normally takes a year now, just means that the one month period of the ring would be as wide as the SUMMER portion of current growth, then next month would ADD to that SUMMER growth and make it twice as wide, the THIRD month the same. You do NOT get a winter portion to make the ring. You do NOT get added rings by this concept, it is a false argument.

False, and we start to see here that it is you that do not get it.

Your point is that the tree rings are laid down a certain way now, seasonally. If the trees did grow in a different past world, where things were fundamentally different, there would be no summer rings, or winter. If we, for example had a tree grow in 2 weeks, with, say, 336 rings, each ring, of course does not represent a summer. It represents an hour. In that early earth, we may have had a cool of the day, an windy part of the day, a nighttime, a daytime, a time when the waters came up from below to water the earth. In fact, for all we know, the water could have come up every 3 hours. Etc. In other words, we still could have rings, and variations in a pattern, that later would be replaced by a pattern taking more time.

quote:
Yet you just did that and nothing else. You have absolutely NO basis for your claim and no reason for it to work, you just WANT it to be so.

It is actually you that have been doing this, and I simply point it out. But I do have some basis for my idea, the documentation of the bible. What do you have to tell us that the state of this earth was the same, and tree growth rates had to be the same as well?? -Nothing at all.

quote:
No we look at the tree rings to see the characteristics that are consistent with the known data,

Precisely my point, thanks for admitting it. Now, think about it, where do you look? You look right here, in this present state world.

quote:
the known behavior of all plants, and the known behavior of the solar system and the known factors of climate and seasons on growth and the development of all plants, and we look to see how those factors are represented in the rings.

As I just pointed out you look at present knowns, and assume they apply. That just is not enough to make big claims over.

quote:
This is the difference between evidenced based reasoning and woo. We look to see if there are reasons to think that things could change significantly in the past and see none. This is rational thinking.

Now we are talking. You claim it is rational to assume that it was always the same state universe. Why? -Because you see no change in this present state. But, if this whole state of the universe were the change, we would not be able to see any change, because our norm would be this state.

quote:
You however assume a sea change based on a complete lack of data and information, theory and evidence. This is delusion not rational thinking.

A "sea" change?? What is that about?

quote:
Fascinating that these recorded history items also include astronomical observations that match those made today.

If they were made after the change, why would they be any different, I fail to see your point??

quote:
Amazing that they also record occurrences that match from one society to another between china and egypt. Your dismissal of history is like your dismissal of evidence that condtradicts your belief: delusion.

If you think I dismiss any history at all, you are delusional. The only thing I question are the dates.

quote:
Seeing as you have yet to establish when any possible mythical woo period of the flood occurred you can't say when something was before or after it either.

Yes, we can, the flood dates are pretty well known. About 4500 years ago.

quote:
Thus you can still expect - not "present rates" (the little ice age and the medieval warm period were not "present rates" but significant differences) - that the factors we see at work to still work the way we see them: there is no alteration in the timing of the seasons nor the orbit of the earth around the sun nor the rotation of the earth on it's axis, nor any other factor that would affect the delineation between summer growth and winter growth that make up an annual ring.

Ahh, no. The little ice age, etc. was simply a time of flux in this present state world.

quote:
Until you provide something substantial and defined for your concept you're still talking woo wishful thinking unfounded on reason.

The change I have in mind, was after the flood. It is founded on bible. The evidence fits. So, claiming that it was the same state universe before that is impossible. Until you provide something substantial and defined for your concept you're still talking woo wishful thinking unfounded on reason. Just assumption. That is where you are at.

quote:
And the evidence has been presented, you just ignore or misunderstand it. Certainly to think it could be DIFFERENT we would need evidence: where is yours? what is it? how does it work? Wishful thinking woo explanations are not evidence and are not based on reason, they are delusions.

And the bible evidence is available. You just ignore or misunderstand it. Certainly to think it could be THE SAME we would need evidence: where is yours? what is it? how does it work? Wishful thinking woo explanations are not evidence and are not based on reason, they are delusions.

quote:
Gosh, I'm sorry. Looks like you may actually have to do a little work on your own then. Go to a link I've given you before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29

Scroll down to the picture of the tree stump (it's at the second sub paragraph titled "The cutting of the tree") and click on it. I know it's asking a lot, but you did want to see it eh?



Pretty good. The reason, however I asked for a close up of the rings was not because I never thought they were there. It was because I wanted to see if there was any differences discernible to the eye, after 4400, or 4500 tree rings ago. That pic is just a stump.

quote:
You can save this picture to your computer and zoom in on it to your hearts content. If that is not enough take a hike and go see the real thing. Put your face in the evidence.

No need to, I never doubted for a moment. I simply asked if we had a close up of the early part of the ring record. No is the answer. Thanks.

quote:
Then stop invoking woo and start looking at the evidence. Tree rings are caused by seasons, not by woo growth pattens. Past earth growth is not assumed, nor is it created in some mythology by woo, it is shown by the evidence.

How they are caused is not a topic of debate here. That would be, how they used to grow, in case you forgot the past is the issue here.

quote:
Then it would have no rings. Stop making stuff up and start dealing with reality.

Reality is that they do have rings, and that they also did, as the evidence for the time period bears out quite clearly. The rings do not stop at 4400 years ago, if you notice. Let's try and stick with the facts.

quote:
Yes, you've been here before, you are misrepresenting yourself as a new poster, giving false witness about yourself. I've known that for some time. Good luck with the suspension issue on that.

I don't need luck, I have plan B, remember, and I am not misrepresenting anything. Does one need to post on a forum using some legal name? No. One uses a screen name.

quote:
Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time.

No problem at all. The state of the universe was different, and light, etc. Therefore, it would be expected to affect all plants, not just pine trees.

quote:
Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).
I don't claim false rings. The different state fast growth had real rings.

quote:
Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

Not at all, if a tree could grow in a week, crossing over some pre present state patterns is no problem at all.

quote:
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
As I said, the change was after the flood, again, no problem at all!

quote:
And there is still no evidence that anything would have been different during the period covered by the data, different enough to make some kind of woo possible. You need evidence to base a different pattern on and you have none. It's time to stop hiding behind the woodshed and start facing reality.

There is no evidence that the state of the past was the same, and that is what knocks your science claim down for the count. As it is, the evidence can be interpreted either way. All that matters is the starting assumptions, and we can apply that same principle to the stars above, light, gravity, you name it. The present state of the universe the bible call a temporary one. Soon to be no more as is. Science has nothing to say about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2007 6:39 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 6:40 AM simple has responded
 Message 24 by simple, posted 06-19-2007 12:05 AM simple has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 90 (406108)
06-17-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
06-16-2007 9:07 PM


Re: Here's the deal
quote:
You need a system that mimics years with additional seasons to start and stop the growth. Something that would be observed as an year for growth.

This leaves you with a problem: either they had more seasons before the flood - which is nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of - OR they were actually counted as years when they were partial years - and the age of the earth is younger in your voodoo woo world than you imagine, a length change ALSO nowhere recorded nor remarked on when it changed that I am aware of (although it could explain the "age" of some people eh?)

This just does not work, even in voodoo woo land.

Do you want to try again or do you want to move on to Carbon-14 evidence?


I already covered this last post, it was not seasons that former the tree ring patterns then. Warm, cool, moist, etc,--yes. The timeframes are different.

Now, in this different past state, which the bible indicates, (and is supposed to exist again in the future), there is no decay. The bible says the earth and sun, and stars will last forever. The New Jerusalem as well, is eternal. No way can it decay away, or into something else.

Therefore, if we assume this no decay in the past, all dates and carbon dating is null and void. And, assume it many will, until you prove that it was some other way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2007 9:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 7:12 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 18 of 90 (406225)
06-18-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
06-17-2007 6:40 AM


Refutations Dismissed Firmly - No Denial Possible
quote:
LOL your voodoo woo answer keeps changing. The big problem for
quote:
you is that the tree ring record is continuous. There is no point at which all the trees died then a gap and then trees that lived before the gap.

False, first of all you were not even able to provide the record of 4500 rings ago, in any detail to see if there was any difference at all. When we also consider that the change likely took almost no time, there would not be expected any great change.


False. Not if all the trees on earth grew only after the flood. Sorry you seemed to have missed that.

So, absolutely no problem at all.

quote:
About an abrupt and totally different kind of behavior yet it looks exactly like it always did: voodoo woo wishing.

Being alive still, there are some things that go on. The changes would not reflect in the rings much, if at all. They would simply now use another light, and altered molecular and atomic level changes, and life process.

quote:
And there is no gap in the tree ring data. It shows life continues without break growing on mountains in the Sierra Nevada the Ireland to Germany. Looks like you need to question those dates and who came up with them: they are falsified by the evidence.

That doesn't matter when the living trees all were after the flood.

quote:
LOL. Exactly. And all the data we have is "after the flood" because it is continuous. There is no gap in the data for the flood, so no "before the flood" data is involved.

Right. As far as living trees, anyhow.

quote:
Time to face reality Keys. {abe} You may think you have "dismissed the refutations firmly", but all you have done is deny the evidence and engaged in a series of unsubstiated everchanging wishes that the evidence show something else than they do. Denial is not refutation, it is "dismissal" but for the wrong reasons:

You pretend there is evidence that there isn't, why live in denial??

quote:
It is dismissal of reality that conflicts with your fixed false beliefs. It is not reasoned.

Who is "Abe"? I dismiss nothing at all, but your attempts at dismissing the reality that you have no clue what the state of the past was like. Why make stuff up?? I prefer honesty.

Edited by keys, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 6:40 AM RAZD has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 19 of 90 (406227)
06-18-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
06-17-2007 7:12 AM


Re: Here's the deal, once more
quote:
I'm not talking about dating with carbon-14 yet. Just about the amounts of carbon-14 in the samples. Because the C-14 comes from the atmosphere for trees (respiration), no tree ring can be the same age as another tree ring and not have the same level of C-14 in it. This means that all your voodoo woo tree rings formed in a week or a month would have the same level of C-14 in them.

Moot point! How the carbon comes is not an issue at all. How it used to come is. Try and focus. Unless you claim that it used to come the same way, in which case, --prove it!

quote:
NOTE: we are NOT discussing carbon 14 dating yet, just the evidence from tree-ring chronologies and the accuracy of the data. Some of this has already been discussed above, in regards to the two oak chronologies. Here we are concerned with the last of the tree-ring chronologies that we can fix to an absolute time frame.

Then it is not an issue. If a tree could grow in a week, no overlapping is a problem.

In fact, even raising things like false rings is a strawman.

quote:
Carbon-14 Levels

Furthermore, the ages of the tree-ring data are validated by the carbon-14 levels in the samples. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the quantity of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample. The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14


FALSE!!! Speculation. Unbased! You assume a same past state where the carbon only got there as it now does. FIRST you need a same state, then I will believe you. Meanwhile, you are simply talking a myth.

quote:
quote:Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day.
So what, we are talking about the past, and if there was no decay, why would there even be these rays entering anywhere?

quote:
Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.

Now, yes. But not in a different state past. For all we know, the results of the life processes of trees could have produced carbon, and simply not worked as it now does, with this state, this light, these physical universe laws, etc.

quote:
These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":
It may also be interesting to look at how a different life process worked, and how much nitrogen, and carbon, and etc were used in what way. Present based musings only go so far.

quote:
The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.

Establishing that carbon was present. Now, we need to ask why, in the past, that was so. Not sit there assuming the present workings can be projected to infinity, and beyond!

quote:
Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis. This is highly unlikely to be done.

Done! The carbon was a part of the past process, not produced as it now is.

quote:
The logical conclusion is that this confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.

That is ONLY as logical as the assumption that the state of the past was the same, and also only as evidenced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2007 7:12 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 06-18-2007 7:05 AM simple has responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2007 10:34 AM simple has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 22 of 90 (406280)
06-18-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Admin
06-18-2007 7:05 AM


Re: Here's the deal, once more
If I said yes, would I be suspended?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 06-18-2007 7:05 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2007 8:57 PM simple has responded
 Message 28 by Admin, posted 06-19-2007 10:13 AM simple has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 24 of 90 (406305)
06-19-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by simple
06-17-2007 12:55 AM


Case of the Missing Rings!!
quote:
And this ... assuming you mean carbon-14 (14C) and not all forms of carbon (the normal carbon-12, the other common isotope carbon-13, and rarer rest of the 13 known isotopes): we are after all talking about the proportion of 14C to 12C in the samples and not the presence of carbon itself in the structure of all organic molecules, right?

Well, how different isotopes of carbon are now produced amount to the same issue. A fundamental forces change, remember affects the strong and weak nuclear forces, and possibly the charges, and balance of many things atomic.
WE must establish whether the state of the universe first was the same, to go ahead and start assuming all over the place it all worked the same as now.

quote:
And this concept ... we'll accept these premises for the purpose of the argument and with no judgment at this time on their possible validity and without substantiation on your part to claims of having "biblical evidence" in support of your position.

When it does come down to you actually providing some of this long promised "biblical evidence" we need an acceptable criteria for what is actual "biblical evidence" and what is interpretation of "biblical evidence" --



Well, no need to cross that bridge until someone came to it. Since I don't think you much care what the bible says anyhow, I don't see how it really matters. That may be a bridge too far.

quote:
Criteria for biblical evidence:

* it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts:
http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/
* it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.

If you do not have that, then you do not have "biblical" evidence, but evidence of some human interpretation of "biblical" evidence. What you have is an interpretation that is not necessarily universal and which is certainly subject to human error, pride and delusion. Interpretation is not evidence. There is no argument on this - you either have it or you don't.


Don't worry about the bible, and the things it says happened in the past yet. You would do well to simply either admit you have no science for your same past and future, or prove it now herewith.

Back to the evidence:

quote:
Now, assuming that all this happened after the flood -- as you now claim -- means we need to compress all the data into a very brief period of time.

If you mean tree growth, yes, I think a lot of it would have been after the flood.

quote:
quote:The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world. The Nile valley forms a natural geographic and economic unit, bounded to the east and west by deserts, to the north by the sea and to the south by the Cataracts of the Nile. The need to have a single authority to manage the waters of the Nile led to the creation of the world's first state in Egypt in about 3000 BC.

Prove the dates, show us what they are based on. They are wrong.

quote:
We'll be generous and set the end of your speculation period as 3000 BC: certainly there is no record of changed growth patterns in the historical record of Egypt. So the period under discussion is from your flood date (assumed for now) of "About 4500 years ago" (Message 14) to about 3000 BC, or 5,000 years ago. OOPS?

Simple, your dates are wrong, Egypt was after Babel, which was the time I think the big change happened. Just look at the dates, and what they are based on. Take away the same past decay claims, and have a good gander.

quote:
Looks like you need to review your sources and provide the information that it is based on, as there is a severe conflict in the information here. You say you have biblical evidence: let's see it. Not some interpretation, the actual KJV citation. Otherwise I call voodoo woo doodoo delusion.

Look up the Usher chronology. I agree with it, by and large. Even if there was som room for opinion, it really isn't that much room.

quote:
Until then, we have a negative time interval for your period of voodoo woo magic growth and physics defying suspension of molecular behavior.

We have the different past till 100 years after the flood, if that is what you mean. I'll have to go to Haiti and hire a translator if you keep this up.

quote:
To proceed one needs to assume, based not on a complete lack of evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence, that some period of {X} years ending at some point {Y} in the past involved your voodoo woo magic time.

Y =4400 years.

quote:
Entering into this delusional world of growth and behavior for the sake of continuing the argument, we have a couple of possibilities for 14C in proportion to 12C in the growth of all organic organisms:

(1) the ratio 14C/12C was fixed at some ratio level {R} during this period, with 14C being neither added (by any means) to the atmosphere, ground or whatever, nor removed (the no-decay period is in effect) by any means, and the proportion had always been at ratio level {R} until decay was introduced (and with it the production of 14C by solar activity as we see today, seeing as this is a reversed decay process),

(2) the ratio 14C/12C started at zero either at creation or at some time {T}, such as the end of the flood, and then rose steadily to ratio level {R} by time {Y} when normal decay and production process took over,

(3) there was no 14C before the flood, that the flood caused the production of 14C to start or released 14C at level {F} so that by the time {Y} we are at level {R} by either (1) where {F}={R}, or (2) where {F} + (d14C/dt)({Y}-{T} = {R}

In any event we have ratio level {R} at time {Y} and we have a process that produces 14C that should show up in the evidence of the ring layers of the trees formed by the successive layers of growth of new living tissue around the previous ring layers:


Well, a whole different growth process, and use of different light, and etc of the day would have left carbon in place. That means we don't need to produce it from the atmosphere, or decay. (Only since the time of Y)

quote:
If the whole tree grew in a week then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.

First of all, we can't start hypothesizing about the pre Y growth process, as if it should have done this and that, unless we knew something about it. For example, do we even know that plants used to use photosynthesis? And if they did for sure, did the former light produce the same levels of certain kinds of carbon?

"Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio.."
http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html

So, how do we determine the ratio of carbon levels, based only on the present system?

quote:
If all the ring layers are getting new carbon during the growth of the tree then all the ring layers should have the same ratio of 14C/12C.

As just explained the ratios they were getting can't be measured by present ratios.

quote:
If the new ring layers are getting their carbon from the environment, and the old ring layers have the carbon ratios that were in effect when they grew, then we should see a progression of carbon ratio with ring layers that matches the above scenarios for the generation of the 14C/12C ratios.

NOT if the current decay rates that are in effect, combined with the present growth methods in place for 4400 years. The half life for C14, is 5,730 yrs. That means we also had about 4400 years of present decay at work! That is something like 75% of the decay half life gone already since the change.

quote:
The actual data

The actual data shows an exponential decay curve with some variation up and down due to the flux in 14C/12C ratio or some other effect. When we correct the data according to the climate information from the tree rings (variations in width of the fast growth portion of the rings) then these up and down variations are markedly reduced. According to the current science of dendrochronology, dendroclimatology, the physics of 14C production and radioactive decay, most of the variation would be accounted for by such climate changes (some other factors affect 14C production, such as sun cycles, but these are longer term effects).

Thus the actual 14C ratio levels existing in all the dendrochronology data support the scientific model as being valid. Notice that we are talking about time within the first half-life period of 14C, the first tic mark on the horizontal scale in this diagram:


In other words, you try and use climate changes to smooth out the wrinkles of what is expected. So far, I haven't really even seen you sample only rings that are beyond say, 4500!! That would only be some hundreds of rings in the early growt of the old trees. And, why not? Since that is the focus and crux of the matter of your claim.

-Rather than just trying to blend it all together, and smooth it out with some projected climactic differences!

quote:
That is ONLY as logical as the assumption that the state of the past was the same, and also only as evidenced.

Hec no, as shown here, you really are just blowing smoke and flahing mirrors here. Try and focus on the rings that are beyond the time of the flood era. What about them can you tell us?

quote:
Time to put up or shut up: stop cowering behind the woodshed and start facing reality.

Hey, so far I have just been letting you punch yourself out here. Soon, the games may begin.

[quote]As noted previously, the Prometheus tree is missing the early growth section because that has been worn away by the weathering of the tree over time. This is why they know the tree is actually older than the count of the rings. You still lose. [quote]

Well, well well, that is interesting!!! What about that area was different, that allowed the rings to wear away, assuming, of course as I do they ever were there!!!!!!!!

Now we need another tree, with the rings intact, or I am really really going to be suspicious here!!!!
Thanks for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by simple, posted 06-17-2007 12:55 AM simple has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2007 9:18 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 25 of 90 (406308)
06-19-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
06-18-2007 8:57 PM


The Present is Odd man Out
quote:
Does NOT say that past times were any different, just that an unspecified future will be.

Also note specification regarding your use of "biblical evidence"

quote:
Criteria for biblical evidence:

* it is in the King James Version (KJV) or is similar to the KJV that is online, as this is a fairly universally accepted translation and interpretation of the actual hebrew and greek texts used in the original compilation, and of the latin bible that originated from the compilation of those texts:
http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/
* it is clearly spelled out in the KJV on line such that no interpretation of the text is needed -- interpretation being subject to human error and bias.


Then we can move on eh?

Enjoy.


Well, if you conceed the new heavens, then that is half the battle. You have admitted that this is a temporary state according to the bible.

Now, let's see if the future state is closer to the present one or the past state.

The tree of life is only in the future, and the past.

Re 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Ge 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This tree had a known growth rate of bearing fruit every single month of the year. That means that it does not match the present at all. Since the tree was in Eden, one can assume it matched the past.

Re 22:2 - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:

I happen to use the KJV, so using it is natural. If we want to get into it, we can confirm a different past growth rate from a few other indications as well.

Then, we can look at some things recorded in the past, and see if they match up to the present state.

The flood, the tower of Babel, the long lifespans of man, and etc. There is only one way to reconcile the two, and that is by saying either it is a bunch of fables, or, that the past was very different.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote boxes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2007 8:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2007 6:40 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 30 of 90 (406441)
06-20-2007 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
06-19-2007 6:40 AM


Re: The Present is Odd man Out
quote:
We can assume nothing: this is your interpretation, the interpretation of a human which can be faulty.

All it means was that the tree was in Eden, which we have no clue where it was: could have been in "gods paradise" yes? Same place as in the future, hasn't moved.


You suggest Eden has not moved? The please show us where it is! The paradise of New Jerusalem is in the future, not in Eden of old. That is absurd. It is in this city we find the tree of life. We also found it in Eden. Past, and future. NOT now, in this present.

quote:
Again, this involves your interpretations. Subject to mistakes.

How would you know, I never even mentioned them yet? We are not looking here to harmonize all bible interpretation on earth. We simply need to decide if there is a solid bible case to be made or not. There is.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2007 6:40 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2007 6:47 PM simple has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 31 of 90 (406444)
06-20-2007 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
06-19-2007 9:18 AM


Re: Moving on - Ice and Dust
quote:
Actually I've covered that: we looked at the tree ring data and then predicted what the carbon 14 levels would be given that the rings are annual rings and that the laws of physics holds for molecular behavior in general and the decay of radioactive molecules in particular, and how climate as we know it today would affect the initial carbon 14 levels to then adjust the data according to the climate markers in the tree rings -- this all predicts an exponential decay curve for the 14C/12C ratio in the samples that was then born out in the data. Prediction verified.


Problem is, it is only verified in your la la land myth dream world.
See, we still need the starting point to determine all this. You tweak numbers, and add in weather over imagined time periods, and decay you think was there, etc etc etc, to come up with a number. But that doesn't take anything away from looking at it from the starting point of a different past, and also expecting what we see now. If we had an initial ratio of C12, and C14, used in the former process, the curve works as well. You need to lose your assumptions and stick to the facts.

quote:
State of universal laws today applicable to the length of the tree ring data is entirely consistent with those laws being in effect.

Utter nonsense! Most of that time has been in this state, and the consistency you claim depends on fantasy after assumed fantasy. I see you never addressed the convenient missing rings in the early growth of the tree that was older than the split!

quote:
Doesn't say that at all. That is just your interpretation of the article, and your interpretation is subject to error, mistake, etcetera. What it says is that 13C/12C ratios (both non-radioactive) can be used to fine tune the 14C/12C data for today and other times.

But what does that do to address a different growth, where the ratios were in place??? Nothing. It merely assumes the same present state ways into the past. Then, it looks at how those things are now produced. You must be kidding, cut the assumption based myths here.

quote:
With the ratio of fractioning being the same now and in the past though, the relation of 14C/12C today compared to 14C/12C in the past still retains the same mathematical relationship to age.

So, let us look at the missing rings era, then to test that claim. If the missing rings, say, start at 4400 rings ago, and went to however old the tree was, say, 4780 rings, that means there are 380 missing rings! Tell us, in that period, that you say is 'years', what is the 14C/12C relationship, precisely??? Let's see what you got.

quote:
This is just an admission of denial of the evidence. The tree ring data extends to 12,405 years, ignoring the rest of the data is denial, not refutation, not dealing with the evidence, not belief, not interpretation, just denial. So far you have done nothing to refute the data or the fact that they represent annual tree rings that measure a portion of the actual physical age of the real world. Denial is not refutation it is
Absolute balderdash. The data extends nowhere of the kind. The rings on one tree are under 5000. With trees that could grow real fast in a different past, the other 7405 'years' is pure, uncut fantasy, based solely on that state of the past you cannot prove. That is all. Nothing more.

quote:
Not only no evidence, a refusal to present evidence. Your position goes from weak to untenable. Whether you agree with the Usher chronology or not is irrelevant: it is an interpretation of the data and not the data. Interpretations are human constructs and subject to error, mistake, pride, ignorance and misrepresentations. All it is amounts to opinion. When opinion is at odds with reality it is not reality that suffers by comparison.

Well, tough if you don't like the YEC ages determined from the bible, by Usher. It is an accepted thing, whether you like or no like. Not by all, but so what? Nothing wrong with mainline interpretation of the bible. You have no idea what reality will be, or was. As for reality of this temporary universe we live in, you have no monopoly on that by any stretch either. Calm down. Hate to break it to ya, Razd, but your opinion on bible is of limited coinage.

The evidence of a bible position that is researched and accepted widely is evidence enough for me, and millions. You may not dismiss the Usher dates as valid bible interpretation, or a 'bible case'. Period. Get over it. Nor may anyone else at EVC, like it or lump it.

quote:
Glad you agree that you cannot claim anything about what it was like "pre Y" after spending so much time doing just that. Those premises of yours were what were evaluated. Based on your premises decay would affect all pre-Y levels exactly the same (as decay did not exist pre-Y), reducing them in proportion from that time, and NOT from the time of their being "set" in the samples. This is what is predicted by your premises and it is falsified by the data: the data is totally inconsistent with the premises. Hence your premises are shot down:

You assume that what should have been there pre split was something that I don't assume. How would you know if they were affected by decay?? If there was, say, more carbon in the past, and much of it decayed, why would we expect a lot now??? The ratio itself that means something now, in this state, means nothing the same in the past. Unless you prove a same past state, of course! You can't! You really have no case at all. Your myth is busted.

quote:
Looks like denial is not just a river in Egypt ... The dates are based on the written history, the written record, one that invokes no change in historical times of any biological, chemical, physical or astronomical behavior from what we know today.

I call you out here. This is not accurate. Back up your claims. The dates are not at all reliably recorded, that is false. Look into it. Be amazed.

quote:
These histories also include records of pre-recorded times that also do not invoke any such changes. The dates for Egyptian tombs are also verified by comparison of wood to dendrochronology and dendroclimatology data and by other methods that only confirm the historical dates.

AS we just saw, that is nothing more than same state past assumption, and cannot be used for dates unless there was a same past. Period.

quote:
Time for you to do the research rather than just deny the evidence. A library would be a good start. The topic is easy: Egyptian history.

You are in for a surprise. I am telling you point blank, the dates are wrong wrong wrong. You will not be able to support them.

quote:
More empty promises. Time to put some ice on the discussion:

Annual Layers of Ice

Tree-rings are not the only system that build annual layers that can be measured and counted. Snow and ice also follow annual patterns in their formation and deposition that allow a number of ways to determine the annual layers.

To introduce the basic methods we will start with a fairly simple but dramatic set of annual ice layers:

The Quelccaya Ice Cap
This information comes from an on-line slide show:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index20.htm (3)

quote:(Slide 1) The Peruvian altiplano is a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Though the altiplano is a cold, harsh environment, large herds of hardy llamas such as these hint at the richness of South America's high grasslands. The Quelccaya ice cap rises in the background, 55 km2 of ice that provides important clues on climatic change and variability in the South American tropics. The ice sheet's summit elevation is 5670 m and its maximum summit thickness is 164 m.

Click to enlarge

(Slide 3) The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).

(Slide 6) An array of forty-eight solar panels provided enough electricity to recover two ice cores to bedrock, one 154.8 m long covering the last 1350 years, and the other 163.6 m long and 1500 years old.


Irrelevant to this debate. The dates are in this state universe.

quote:
(Slide 11) Two of the analyses performed on the cores are presented here, accumulation and the oxygen isotope ratio (known as d18O). Accumulation is a measure of annual layer thickness normalized to account for the compression of ice layers at depth and corrected for ice flow dynamics.

Woah. Slow down here. If we start 'correcting' things in a different state past, and 'normalizing' them for dynamics of years thet never were, we have a problem.

quote:
The oxygen isotope ratio (a measure of the ratio of heavy oxygen (18O) to light oxygen (16O)) is a proxy measure for paleotemperature, though it also reflects changes in snow surface processes and water-vapor history.

So we have atomic ratios, projected into a different past, as if they were the same, and an admission that water vapor affects the mix here.

quote:
One of the most salient features in the last millennium of climate history is the Little Ice Age, a loosely-defined period of cold temperatures and increased climatic variability that has been documented in many parts of the globe.* As this figure shows, the Little Ice Age is identified in the Quelccaya climate record as a period of 'colder' (more negative) d18O roughly bracketed between 1550 A.D. and 1900 A.D.
Whopee do. We see how it now works. Great. So??

quote:
Note that they are talking about correlating layers with climate information provided by d18O. We'll also come across this in other measurement systems. This is the proportion of a "heavy" isotope of oxygen in the atmosphere (16O is "normal" weight oxygen)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16 (1)
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-18 (2)

While this series of layers only date back to ~500AD they are important for a couple of reasons: they show visible layers, and they allow calibration of the oxygen isotope ratio (d18O) as a measure of layers and of climate.


And WHO questions this, since it is present based, and in the present state timeframe?

quote:
These layers also show a period of sever weather that is known from history (the Little Ice Age) and the effects of a volcanic eruption nearby that occurred in 1600 AD. These results can then be applied to other ice cores.

OK, --- so??

quote:
(Slide 17) Since Quelccaya is at the edge of the moist Amazon Basin while Dunde is wedged between two deserts, it is not surprising that accumulation rates are much higher at Quelccaya. Indeed, the annual average accumulation at Quelccaya in meters of water equivalent is 1.15 m compared to just .43 m at Dunde. Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment.

Since snow accumulates more slowly at Dunde, ice from its ~140 m cores is significantly older than that from Quelccaya. While Quelccaya provides high-resolution clues to the last 1500 years of climate, Dunde stretches back over 40,000 years, well into the last ice age.



Well, no. Not at all. All this refers to is layers, not years. Obviously, as we cross into the different past, the layers were put down faster.

quote:
The same kind of alternating layers of dust and snow as at Quelccaya, the same kind of climate information from the oxygen isotope ratio (d18O), data that matches known climate markers, including the last ice age. Research on the Dunde Ice Cores is continuing, including analysis of the dust and pollen as markers not just of climate but of environment.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/135 (5)

quote:High pollen concentrations between 10 000 and 4800 yr B.P. suggest that the summer monsoon probably extended beyond its present limit to reach Dunde and westernmost Tibet in response to orbital forcing. The summer monsoon retreated time-transgressively across the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau during the middle Holocene.


Hello??? Probably what did what?? 'orbital forcing'??? What is that? Why paste a huge bunch of stuff here, that just guesses, and supposes, and speculates, and rattles on about nothing?? Woulda coulda shoulda, maybe..!

quote:
Relatively humid periods occurred at 2700-2200, 1500-800, and 600-80 yr B.P., probably as a result of neoglacial cooling.

Excuse me??? Now they try and cook up stuff to explain what they see. Humid??? Hey, pre split can do that.

quote:
Prominent pollen changes during the Medieval Warm Period (790-620 yr B.P.) and the Little Ice Age (330-80 yr B.P.) suggest that the vegetation in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region is sensitive to abrupt, century-scale climatic changes, such as those anticipated in scenarios of greenhouse warming.

Say what???? 'century scale'??? What is this supposed to mean, what happens in these last know centuries must extend into the mystic past as well????

[/quote] quote:The insoluble microparticle concentrations and size distributions and oxygen isotope abundances (d180) in two 1-meter ice cores from the margin of the Dunde ice cap (38° 06 'N; 96° 24 'E; 5325 masl) drilled in 1986 and three ice cores drilled to bedrock at the summit of the ice cap in 1987 suggest the presence of Wisconsin/Würm Glacial Stage (LWGS) ice in the subtropics.[/quote]

So???

quote:
Additionally, the morphological properties of the particles in the LWGS ice are identical to those of the thick, extensive loess deposits of central china which accumulated during the cold, dry glacial stages of the Pleistocene. When the climatic and environmental records are fully extracted from the three deep cores they will provide a very detailed record of variations in particulates (soluble and insoluble), stable isotopes, net balance, pollen and perhaps atmospheric gases of CO2 and methane through the Holocene into the last glacial in the subtropics on the climatically important Tibetan Plateau.

So? WHEN they have some point, then they can make it.

quote:
quote:The Wisconsin (in North America), Devensian (in the British Isles), Midlandian (in Ireland), Würm (in the Alps), and Weichsel (in northern central Europe) glaciations are the most recent glaciations of the Pleistocene epoch, which ended around 10,000 BCE. The general glacial advance began about 70,000 BCE, and reached its maximum extent about 18,000 BCE.

Prove it!!! Don't just rattle off a story as if it meant something!

quote:
The latter part of the Devensian includes Pollen zones I-IV, the Allerød and Bølling Oscillations and the Older and Younger Dryas climatic stages.

There was pollen. Wow. How impressive. So??

quote:
Thus we see evidence of the end of the last glaciation period in the dust and pollen in the layers of ice from the Dunde Ice Cap in addition to the evidence of the d18O ratios. Data that also makes the concept of a world wide flood (WWF) within this period difficult, as the dust every year is of the same type and the thickness of ice and dust layers are the same from year to year indicating that the ice cap has not changed locations nor floated on water at any time in its history.

I think the ice age was after the flood anyhow. So..??

quote:
Spring pollen, summer dust, winter snow. Annual layers accumulating for 40,000 years with no break for a flood and no disruption of the data, no change in the timing or kind of dust, which shows that the ice was in the same place for all those 40,000 years, undisturbed.

40,000 layers, not years. Piece of cake. Just stop assuming things present, and there is no problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2007 9:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2007 8:00 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 34 of 90 (406529)
06-20-2007 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
06-20-2007 8:00 PM


Cooking up a Curve With Only Things PO
quote:
False. An initial ratio would show up as the same proportion of 14C/12C for all the rings formed before decay started. They would all then decay at the same rate when decay started. Thus they would have the same proportion of 14C/12C today.

The proportion itself is irrelevant. Because whatever the starting position was, we can determine by what is left, and the decay half lives, and the time elapsed. All the proportions and ratios tell us, is that they are are a result of what was left, including present decay! All you do is try and cook up a curve that ONLY includes things PO, such as imagined weather, and decay that went on pre split, when they may not have been any, etc etc.

What we really need to do is look at the FACTS. What do we have FROM beyond 4500 years ago, such a tree rings??? The only sample I think in the world that was actually cut down, that has 4800 some rings, seems to have the center rings conveniently missing. Address the facts, and ease up on the myth preaching here. What can you tell us about the actual evidence here , the rings that are missing, that are supposedly from pre flood era??? What precise carbon ratios THERE do we actually see?? Forget the present state stuff.

quote:
..The actual 14C/12C data versus the time of the tree rings shows consistency with the decay rates being constant as is in accordance with the basic laws of physics. You can break the laws with magic, but that still does not explain the data and the correlations.

The actual rings seem to be missing, according to you. There were no basic laws of present physics, unless there was a same state past, forget those. If they were not laws in the past, no one could break them.
The speed limit of present light, for example, or the present decay, or the present fundamental forces, etc -all depend on present laws. Present laws depend on a present state physical only universe. I have no reason to assume there was one, or will be one in the future, and we have no evidence, no proof, and no science that says so in any way either. What, we should take your word for it??

And the same goes for ice layers. If there was a different past, we could have had different ways to form ice layers.
"Counting of Annual Layers

The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer)..."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

We could have had cooler and warmer periods in a day. In a consistent way.

Also, if there was no decay, we can look at a different solar effect, in some ways.

"Solar radiation is radiant energy emitted by the sun from a nuclear fusion reaction that creates electromagnetic energy. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation

Give us a same past, or all bets are off. The bible can be actually, really true.

quote:
This is irrelevant because it is covered by the overlapping data from the other samples, ones that were alive when these two trees were young and which lived before they germinated.

Ho ho ho, what an absolute joke! The dead stuff around does not matter, because if a tree could grow in a week, all correlations are wonky as you have assumed things.

quote:
The rings overlap and show a consistent match, not only for climate but for 14C/12C ratios. All the missing rings would show is that the trees are older than listed, thus forcing your voodoo woo magic time further into dreamtime.

The ratios, as already explained do not matter. What does matter is the time you assume it used to take trees to grow, which is based, on...class?.....right, present rates. NOTHING more.

quote:
So you are dismissing your own evidence now. LOL.

I think I can join you in this comment in not knowing what you are talking about!

quote:
The rings are not missing, they are there and just as much a part of the evidence as all the other rings.

Oh really now??? So if you got a missing paycheck for 4 years in a row, that would count as present and banked? Either it is there or it ain't. If those rings are there, why are they missing? If they are not missing, where are they??

quote:
When the 14C/12C data are converted by the exponential curve into "14C age" you get a curve like this (note curve covers whole dendrochronlogical time and all the samples not just one or two trees):

Forget about it, when you lump PO state things, that consist of a majority of the picture here with trees, into some phantom ball curve. That is hand waving, or PO wand waving. You cannot convert a starting ratio from the different past, by waving the Mickey Mouse wamd over it.

quote:
You will note the small variations (the jaggedness of the curve) due to climate and the long term variation that makes the curve deviate from the straight line that would apply if things were as they are today. Note that this shows that an assumption that things are the same as today is not involved in the actual data, but that the data is being used to see what the differences are from things as they are today.

Well, great, let's start this curve at 4400 years ago, and see how it looks. That is the difference, after all we are looking for.

quote:
Note that any sudden appearance of decay after a period of constant ratio would show up as a vertical line to the top of the graph. This is not the case.

No, I don't note that at all. Let's look at where we hit the split, and see what decay you think was there. Start the lines closer to the flood, after all we are not discussing the time since then, as a focus.

quote:
... The growth of the sample trees overlap in time and correlate for tree ring climate data and 14C data. The above graph shows a clear line with no blurring or scattering of data. Deal with the evidence or wallow in delusion.

No trees that grow in a week that overlap matter. Prove there was a same state universe in the past, or wallow in your delusions.

quote:
But so what? That is precisely my point: it is opinion and not fact. Usher is not evidence of fact. Tree rings are facts. The age of the earth is a fact. You have presented no facts for any biblical timeline.

Well, so what, what isn't opinion? Your same past is opinion, and all that is assumed from it. The age of the earth is 6000 years. My facts are that there is a valid body of bible opinion that the bible does give us the creation period. You can agree or not, but it is still a bible position.

quote:
I am no biblical scholar, but I have no need to be one to distinguish falsified opinion from fact and to see that gullible acceptance of opinion at odds with reality is still delusion.

You have not falsified squat here, and you won't. Count on it.

quote:
Usher's dates are contradicted by reality, therefore he made a mistake. His chronology is falsified and it is time for you to go back and look at the facts or to accept that you prefer fantasy to reality.

Well, that is what we are looking at. What is a fact, is that the YEC position is a very valid bible position. No reality contradicts the dates, only the mental projection of today's reality into the past, as if it were the reality there as well. That is what you fail to prove, support, deal with, evidence, observe, test, or etc.

quote:
...
Narmer — (Menes, possibly same person) First Ruler of Dynastic Period. Scorpion — One of the last Rulers of this period. Kingship develops secular power over Two Lands and identify themselves as an embodiment with Gods; Horus, the Sun God Re and the Son of Re. Capital & Royal Court-Memphis; Abydos is Main Necropolis. Mastaba Tombs built from mudbrick and Mortuary Temples housed the Deceased’s ka; a Spirit Force surviving death. Stelae is an inscribed slab inside and outside of Tombs and Temples depicting information of that particular King and Deity associated with him. First calendrical system based on astronomical measurements and Hieratic Script developed.

The calendar of Egypt is set to assumptions only. Look into it. Don't just rattle off these stories as if they meant something. And as far as spirit rulers, and gods, are you claiming that as evidence?? Show us what science the dates are backed up with, or what support for records that give old dates, precisely.

quote:
Even if we assume that the astronomical based calendar was developed at the end of this period that still puts it at 4,693 years ago. Of course it shows normal climates with winters and summers and years ... normal enough to be recognizable today as a calendar.

Now, show us on what star, or etc this calendar was based. Show us how we know that. Let's look at that. (If you are starting to get this little feeling in your gut that the dates can't be supported, you are right, the dates are wrong)

quote:
Note too that the stelae that have been translated with the reigns of kings that can also be pieced together into a chronology of relative ages that extend back to the earliest times of this period.

OK, let us look at that claim. Show us how we piece these together for dates!

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Writing

quote:Writing

For many years, the earliest known hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette, found during excavations at Hierakonpolis (modern Kawm al-Ahmar) in the 1890s, which has been dated to c.3150 BC.


Ho ho how was it dated!!!!? Same past decay assumptive dating?? I'd bet it was. Useless.

quote:

However, recent archaeological findings reveal that symbols on Gerzean pottery, c.3250 BC, resemble the traditional hieroglyph forms.[2] Also in 1998 a German archaeological team under Günter Dreyer excavating at Abydos (modern Umm el-Qa'ab) uncovered tomb U-j, which belonged to a Predynastic ruler, and they recovered three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphics dating to the Naqada IIIA period, circa 33rd century BC.[3][4]

Writing dated to 5,157 years ago, before the development of the astronomical calendar.


Hey dates aside, since you can't begin to support them, remember that the split started at the same time as Babel!!! That means that man could no longer communicate much. He had to resort to picture writing! The Sumerians , and Egyptians evidence this, and they are the first guys off the block in history!! The evidence mounts.

quote:
My claim that "The dates are based on the written history, the written record, one that invokes no change in historical times of any biological, chemical, physical or astronomical behavior from what we know today" stands. Substantiated by the evidence of the calendar alone.

Thats what you think. Show us the basis for this calendar!!!

quote:
Pollen is spring, dust is summer, and snow is winter.

Now, yes. But pollen and dust could have been deposited differently. If, for example, we had better growing rates, why not more pollen?? Why just assume the same state stuff for no reason?

quote:
..Scientists prefer data that show climate change, not your assumptions based on myths and a falsified timeline.

Science prefers to operate from the here and now, and try to project that to infinity and beyond. They better start projecting some proof, their act has grown stale.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2007 8:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 10:21 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 36 of 90 (406736)
06-22-2007 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
06-21-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Continued denial of reality
quote:
The tree ring data extends back to 12,405 years ago (Message 17). One single tree extends back to 4,887 years ago (Message 8) even without the core of the tree (missing due to erosion). This has been pointed out to you before, and your continued denial of the evidence is just evidence or your continued denial of reality.

So, you admit that the only evidence on earth, a tree older than the flood, by your reckoning, that was actually cut down to see plainly, is missing the rings for about the period of the split. Interesting. In fact it is astounding.

The single tree you refer to extends without the actual rings in the core. That is a problem for you!

All you have is the old song and dance about fallen trees nearby, that have similar rings, that you assume took a coon's age to grow as well. Meaningless if the past state was not the same, hence, growth rates. Your ignoring this, and inability to really even address it speaks volumes.

quote:
This is just a repetition of your previous off the cuff assumption with no basis in any kind of evidence. It is fantasy. It is in conflict with the facts of reality, and thus it is delusion.

This is just a repetition of your previous baseless, deep seated assumption with no basis in any kind of evidence of a same state past. It is fantasy. It is in conflict with the facts of reality, and thus it is delusion. The facts of reality happen to be, as all can see right here and now, you cannot prove your myth of a same state past. Really.

quote:
The evidence is entirely consistent with decay occurring as it does today for the length of the tree ring chronology, 12,405 years minimum. The evidence is contradictory to your assumptions regarding a steady 14C/12C environment with no decay for any period starting at some point in the tree ring chronology. Your concept is falsified and you need to start over.
NO evidence is contrary to a starting point from a different past that had ratios in place. Get a grip.

quote:
{abe} Just to be clear why your premise is falsified: your premise was that pre time {Y} there was no decay, and a constant ratio of 14C/12C in the environment. We'll call that ratio RO. At time {Y} the decay of 14C commences, and all 14C then begins to decay at the same time: no matter what the rate is, whether it varies or not, all the 14C is affected exactly the same by the decay. Over time (t) the ratio of 14C/12C decays to Rt. Each sample that started at RO would now be at Rt. This would be true no matter what time t is involved. Whatever time t your choose the ratio Rt would be the same for the samples. It would be true today. Thus all pre time {Y} tree rings must all have exactly the same ratio of 14C/12C today, if your premise were true, and this would show up as a horizontal line on the exponential decay curve or a vertical line on the "14C age" curve. There is no such line in the data. There is no way around this conclusion, as it is derived from the premise and the behavior of decay after time {Y} affecting all samples equally. It does not matter if the decay rate was different 10 years ago or not. Face the facts, choose reality. {/abe}

At least it looks like you try to address the issue here. Let's look at what you claim a little closer, then.

Can you tell us what a pre split "RO" was?? If not, how would it be different than expected, precisely?? For example, let us look at the time of the missing rings were here, what would you expect in them, as far as ratios? Do you have any other trees, with a core or something that actually exists, that we can sample?? What we need isan observation of tree rings that are beyond the 4400 amount! Do you have any? If so, what is the ratios?? Let's see, say, a few hundred rings, and the carbon ratios. Can science do that much??? Let's deal in actual fact and observation and evidence here! Not pie in the sky charts, reverse weather forecasts, and guessographs!

quote:
Your source does not address these ice cores at all, only the polar ones, as such it does not address the issue of dust and pollen in the layers of these cores and their evidence of annual buildup. Further your source does not show that you could have "cooler and warmer periods in a day" so your claim that this could occur is another off the cuff at odds with reality statement. Please deal with the evidence and not engage in fantasy.

The evidence of how they build up is not an issue. The question is how did they in the past? And how do we know?

quote:
You were talking about rings before 4400 years ago being missing. What you are missing is that the Prometheus rings extend back to 4,887 years ago, so the ones 4400 to 4887 are certainly not missing. The rings to the date of germination before 4,887 years ago are missing due to erosion of the tree -- from the Prometheus tree data. Those rings do show up in other samples that overlap the time when Prometheus was alive and that extend further into the past -- up to almost 9000 years ago -- so those rings are not missing in those other samples. Please try to deal with the evidence, it is simple.

OK, so what exactly is missing here? You say now that the rings from the 4400 level are here?? Well, do you have a pic? Do you have any info on what they look like, carbon ratios, etc?? What do you mean that the rings are missing before the tree germinated??

ger·mi·nate (jûrm-nt)
v. ger·mi·nat·ed, ger·mi·nat·ing, ger·mi·nates
v.tr.
To cause to sprout or grow.
v.intr.
1. To begin to sprout or grow.
2. To come into existence: An idea germinated in his mind.

If a tree did not start to grow, why would there be rings?? If it did grow, why are there missing rings?

quote:
{abe} It comes to my mind that you are once again misreading things, as you did with the floating varve chronology, and mixing up the rings missing due to erosion and the error producing missing rings that are the other source of known error in individual tree samples. These latter kind of missing rings are individual rings in individual trees that are missing due to local environment, nutrition and other possible factors. They do not occur in all samples but in individual trees in the same way that false rings occur, and they are corrected for in the same manner. This of course is a much more likely source of error in the extreme environment of the Bristlecone Pine than are false rings, and if anything means that the trees would be older than the ring count would indicate. The climate correlation between the two trees however rules this out as being a significant source of error. {/abe}

Climate correlation is unknown in the past, if it was different. Look, either there are missing rings or not here, make up your mind! What eroded away, as you put it? How many rings are missing? (And don't say we can find them in other trees, please, that is ridiculous -if trees could grow in a week) How many in the actual tree are there, and how many missing, and do you really have a clue as to what it is you are talking about here? Forget correcting for anything. Pony up the evidence of how many actual rings are in the actual tree, and forget the fables.

quote:
This just continues to ignore the evidence that exists. This is not any kind of refutation, all it is is delusion based on denial:
Denial of WHAT!!!?? Only your fables that are unproven in the extreme about the unknown state of the past universe. Why pretend you know???

quote:
Still nada for evidence of your claim. You asked for an extremely lenient criteria for evidence and got it, but you still fail to produce. All this amounts to is your personal assertion of your personal fantasy.

The only fantasy unfolding here is your absolute fable of the past. We see that it is a myth by your lack of science to support your so called science claims.

quote:
The field of Egyptian research is vast and comprehensive and it grows more so every day as new finds add to the previous knowledge. You have not provided any refutation of the evidence provided, no counter argument based on facts. I cannot be responsible for your failure to look at the facts. All you have is denial.
Again I call you out, your claims are balderdash as far as dates go. Really. You are in delusion if you think you gave any semblance of evidence for dates at all. You can't. You won't. I guarantee it.

quote:
Pollen then dust then snow. More or less pollen is irrelevant. Please try to deal with the evidence.

Piece of cake. Pollen blows in, then dust, then snow. Likely this was after the flood. But still in the different past, much of it. So??

quote:
Science takes what it knows, looks at the evidence and sees how things were in past times based on the evidence. What is stale is your continued state of denial of reality, bankrupt of any supporting evidence, and in spite of the evidence that you are wrong.

No, it filters the evidence through the glasses of same state assumptions and beliefs. That is all. Then it pulls a Buzz Lightyear, and tries to fly to infinity and beyond with it! Ridiculous. Science looks only at the present, and assume the past was the same. It finally got busted.

There is no evidence at all for a state of the universe in the past or future that science can say was one way or another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 10:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2007 10:19 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 38 of 90 (406855)
06-22-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
06-22-2007 10:19 AM


Violence to the Ice?
quote:
The plain fact is that both trees, "Methuselah" (4,839 years old) and "Prometheus" (4,887 years old), have rings that extend substantially beyond your arbitrarily voodoo woo dreamtime date of 4400 years ago, and which do in fact have rings that cover your so-called "period of the split", means that you are ignoring the plain evidence before you. This is not rational, it is not faith, it is pathological.

You now claim the rings in the tree that was cut down extend beyond 4400 deep. Yet you also say the center are of rings is missing. How would you know, then how many we actually have left??
Do the actual, present and accounted for physical rings in Prometheus extend where you say? If they do, what can you tell us about this evidence? Don't try and lump it in with dreamed up weather forecasts of a dreamed up past state either.

Remember, that finding other rings in dead trees that complete the record are meaningless if that record only represented months, or years. All that matters is the actual tree.

quote:
Your pathological inability to deal with the reality of Egyptian history is noted. Your failure once again to provide some kind of substantiation no matter how tenuous for your voodoo woo dreamtime world timing is also noted.

History is not an issue, it is your bogus dates that are an issue. Rather than pathologically repeating them, back them up.

quote:
{abe} For further reading on the Egyptian Astronomical Calendar see:
Egyptian calendar, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ASTRONOMY in Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egyptian astronomy
Dating confirmed by the astronomy. {/abe}

Look, I already looked into it. If you have some point from your link that actually addresses the issue of HOW the dates are based, cough it up. The heavens of the past are not something people of the present can assume, remember. The new heavens will be different in some ways in appearance. The past state universe also may have been! The basis of the dates is strictly same past assumption. Nothing more Look into it. Of course there is the king lists that are not reliable, with spirits as leaders, etc etc.

quote:
Doesn't matter what it was, it would still have been the same for all your "pre-split" samples and the result of decay once it started would still be the same value for every sample, and this is contradicted by the evidence.

Well, we are only talking about 1600 years, remember, before the flood. The live trees only cover a few HUNDRED rings beyond the 4400 mark as well!!! That means all we need to look at is the facts and evidence of that few hundred rings. So far, I hear some uncertain noises, unclear claims of missing rings, and nothing put on the table to look at here about those few hundred rings, and the C14 in them, or ratios of C12/14 etc!!! You echo personal incredulity about anything that questions your baseless same past state religious beliefs, but can't pont up squat about the actual issues. Noted.

quote:
They are shown on the curve of "14C age" versus dendrochronological age previously provided. All the "14C age" shows is a mathematical conversion of the 14C/12C ratios found in the actual samples. We have these for the tree rings from 4400 to over 4800 from both trees as well as from the abundance of other dendrochronological evidence, not just from the Bristlecone Pines, but from the (two) European Post Oak dendrochronologies as well.

I told you to deal with the actual evidence from before the flood or split, not lump in things PO, and weather forecasts, present decay, etc with the data. Work on that. What are the ratios of rings beyond 4400 if there are any not missing???? That is the issue.

quote:
So when after the flood did this happen and how fast? What is the period covered that produced the portion of those 40,000 layers that is not annual (as they are now) that would have been laid down in the intervening years by annual deposits? Fill us in on your latest fantasy from your voodoo woo dreamtime world so we can better understand your position.

Generally, I assume that the ice age was after the flood. If so, that means that the ice layers were laid down in the century after the flood, still in the same past state. Then, in the 4400 years since as well.

I would need to look at the specific example, and ask if it might be possible that, before the flood, properties of ice, and etc may have made it possible to have ice piled together.

After all, there was a continental separation.

Although my ideas are somewhat different, here is a little mention of it.

" . Some, or all, of these four so-called trenches may simply be submarine canyons or depressions, not trenches. For example, the Peru-Chile “Trench,” which follows the western boundary of South America, is probably a depression resulting from the settling of South America after the flood. (The continents—crushed and thickened during the compression event and loaded with sediments—had to settle into the mantle.)"

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches7.html

If some ice actually represented something being affected by the rapid separation of land masses, why, we would need to toss out the 40,000 layers as some uniform, old age thing.

Once that is determined, and an actual number is arrived at, we could crunch the numbers to see how much was deposited pre split.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2007 10:19 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2007 10:08 PM simple has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021