Jump to content


Photo

Another Preflood Relic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 June 2009 - 02:44 AM

With the application of logic and common sense it can be shown that the world wide flood did not happen as believed by creationists.  So therefore the artifacts are neither pre nor post flood.

View Post


With the application of logic and common sense, your statement above makes no sense. Just because you wish it "not to be so" doesn't make it "not so".

#22 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:16 PM

Could you please supply a source for the assertion that the magnetic field is decaying at a high rate in the last few thousand years, as you believe?


The Earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing a relative decay of about 5% over the last 150 years [7] The Magsat satellite and later satellites have used 3-axis vector magnetometers to probe the 3-D structure of the Earth's magnetic field. The later Ørsted satellite allowed a comparison indicating a dynamic geodynamo in action that appears to be giving rise to an alternate pole under the Atlantic Ocean west of S. Africa.[8]


Geomagnetic field decay is based on observations regarding the strength of Earth's magnetic field for over the last 150 years. Dr. Thomas Barnes determined that it is decaying and these findings imply a young age of the Earth because if the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible.


http://creationwiki....tic_field_decay - 35k -

Also, I'm unsure why you would only bother with carbon dating - it's not the only one, y'know. Or are you saying each and every dating method is flawed? :-x


I'm saying that the majority of dating methods confirm the earth cannot be billions of years old and some have pinned it down to ~6,500 years old.To reject the majority of dating methods and picking the minority that are inconclusive is called cherry picking.

I can't direct link the thread for some reason,but you can look at "Young Earth Age Correlations" in this forum.


Thanks.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 05:30 AM

YECs start from the premise that the world is less than 10000 years old. So they won't accept dating methods that return dates of more than 10000 years as valid.

On the other hand, I start from the premise that the world is greater than 10000 years old, so I have no reason to think that the date of 35000 years is too far from the mark.

View Post


That is an incorrect statement falcone, your presumption is Billions, not simply "greater than 10000 years old". And 45 Billion (or what ever the current flexible amount) and 35,000 are a great deal different.

#24 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2009 - 09:15 AM

Ofcourse,the earths magnetic field has been decaying since it's creation.


I guess it's odd then that the earth's magnetic field actually fluctuates instead of degrading. Making for the interesting finding that the earth's magnetic field was actually weaker 6,500 years ago than it is today. How does your view of exponential decay deal with this?

Furthermore, the fluctuation of the earth's magnetic field affects radiocarbon dating only in that it can affect the C14 to C12 ratio in the atmosphere. We can, however, calibrate this ratio using tree rings, ice cores, and varves and the fact that these calibrated dates correspond nicely with other radiometric dating methods in addition to non-radioactive dating methods like varves provides exceptionally strong evidence for the accuracy of this method.

Posted Image

It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.


Carbon dating does not date fossils since fossils contain no carbon. From another of your posts (note the bolded text):

The Carbon-14 method of dating can be used to date things that were once living such as wood, animal skins, tissue, and bones (provided they are not mineralized).



#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 August 2009 - 11:59 PM

I guess it's odd then that the earth's magnetic field actually fluctuates instead of degrading.  Making for the interesting finding that the earth's magnetic field was actually weaker 6,500 years ago than it is today.  How does your view of exponential decay deal with this?

View Post

It's not odd at all to encounter ad hoc hypotheses from evolutionists dealing with data they'd prefer not to exist. Oddest thing about this one is how obviously it conflicts with the proposed mechanism. If you build a small magnetic field generator based on their standard model, it won't ever reverse polarity. It cannot.

Furthermore, the fluctuation of the earth's magnetic field affects radiocarbon dating only in that it can affect the C14 to C12 ratio in the atmosphere.  We can, however, calibrate this ratio using tree rings, ice cores, and varves and the fact that these calibrated dates correspond nicely with other radiometric dating methods in addition to non-radioactive dating methods like varves provides exceptionally strong evidence for the accuracy of this method.

Great - a big elaborate circle. The tree ring radiocarbon date proves the varve radiocarbon date, which in turn proves the ice core radiocarbon date, which proves the tree ring radio carbon date. So we can overlook the fact that a critical assumption of the whole evodating method is known to be false.

It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.

Carbon dating does not date fossils since fossils contain no carbon. From another of your posts (note the bolded text):

View Post

There is no conflict between the quoted statements.

The Carbon-14 method of dating can be used to date things that were once living such as wood, animal skins, tissue, and bones (provided they are not mineralized).

Apparently you don't know that mineralization isn't an instantaneous process. Many relics have undergone partial mineralization.

Your own statement would be accurate if you substituted a word and said "Carbon dating does not date fossils which contain no carbon.

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:14 AM

Your own statement would be accurate if you substituted a word and said "Carbon dating does not date fossils which contain no carbon.

View Post

I think that's a very interesting distinction. The evossumptions are being hacked away at as we speak. wonderful.

Inquisitive geologist - "Can you check how much C-14 is in this diamond?"

Indoctrinated lab technician - "This diamond does not contain any radio active C-14"

Inquisitive geologist - "Can you check it anyway."

Indoctrinated lab technician - "Okay"

...

Inquisitive geologist - "Well? What did you conclude?"

Indoctrinated lab technician - "I used the amount of C-14 discovered in that diamond to calibrate my equipment. Since I know that diamonds are not supposed to have any C-14, the amount that was present was used to help me uncover the limits of my testing equipment. According to my calculations that diamond must be 150 million years old because that's what the geologic column demands. We all know that the geologic column is sacred and holy and infallible so don't question it."

Newly indoctrinated geologist - "Oh, wow! You're so smart."


#27 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2009 - 05:42 PM

It's not odd at all to encounter ad hoc hypotheses from evolutionists dealing with data they'd prefer not to exist. Oddest thing about this one is how obviously it conflicts with the proposed mechanism. If you build a small magnetic field generator based on their standard model, it won't ever reverse polarity. It cannot.


Could you explain this a little more? How does this denial of the ability of earth's magnetic field deal with the evidence we have that shows how earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and even reversed over the course of earth's history? Even without getting into oppositely polarized sea floor sediments we should be able to devise a simple test for this. The whole point of mentioning an exponentially degrading magnetic field is it's effect on the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere which would mess with radiocarbon dating. Well, we can test for that by looking at what the actual C12 to C14 ratio's were by looking at tree ring data. Why doesn't that data line up with an exponentially degrading magnetic field?

Great - a big elaborate circle. The tree ring radiocarbon date proves the varve radiocarbon date, which in turn proves the ice core radiocarbon date, which proves the tree ring radio carbon date. So we can overlook the fact that a critical assumption of the whole evodating method is known to be false.


Tree rings can be dated by counting annual growth rings, because they took in carbon from the air we can use them to calibrate radiocarbon dates. There is a wonderfully concise explanation of this process here.

"Calibration of radiocarbon determinations is in principle very simple. If you have a radiocarbon measurement on a sample, you can try to find a tree ring with the same proportion of radiocarbon. Since the calendar age of the tree rings is known, this then tells you the age of your sample."

There are potential problems with the method, and it is not surgically precise, but it has shown itself very reliable via consistent results and correlations with other dating methods. If the method is flawed those correlations we see in the graph I provided upthread shouldn't happen. Pay particular attention to the correlation between radiocarbon dates and the lake Suigetsu varves.

Apparently you don't know that mineralization isn't an instantaneous process. Many relics have undergone partial mineralization.

Your own statement would be accurate if you substituted a word and said "Carbon dating does not date fossils which contain no carbon.

View Post


True, that might have been a bit more clear but the end result remains the same regarding dinosaur fossils.

#28 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:03 PM

A question for those who may be more learned than I am in carbon dating. If the methods we are using were inaccurate as the Creationists say, would we expect to get a complete mess of dates, or would they still line up in a meaningful manner, but be wrong? (i.e. be consistently millions of years out)

Regards,

Arch.

#29 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:32 PM

A question for those who may be more learned than I am in carbon dating. If the methods we are using were inaccurate as the Creationists say, would we expect to get a complete mess of dates, or would they still line up in a meaningful manner, but be wrong? (i.e. be consistently millions of years out)

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


If we are just talking about radiocarbon dates what we definitely should not get is correlations between radiocarbon dates and non-radiocarbon dates like the lake Suigetsu varves:

Posted Image

#30 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:39 PM

If we are just talking about radiocarbon dates what we definitely should not get is correlations between radiocarbon dates and non-radiocarbon dates like the lake Suigetsu varves:

View Post


Oh absolutely I wouldn't expect that. But I mean just comparing carbon dates to themselves. Would we expect them to be consistently out of date by millions of years, or should we expect the dates to be all over the shop, some showing millions of years, others billions, some only thousands?

Regards,

Arch.

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:13 AM

Could you explain this a little more?  How does this denial of the ability of earth's magnetic field deal with the evidence we have that shows how earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and even reversed over the course of earth's history?

How does one consider an internally inconsistent story credible? And interpretations of the evidence which are not insulting to the intellect are available; why ignore them. Oh yeah - implications & consequences.

Even without getting into oppositely polarized sea floor sediments we should be able to devise a simple test for this.

Here's a simple test: take what they say and don't ask questions. That's the kind of test this stuff can usually pass.

The whole point of mentioning an exponentially degrading magnetic field is it's effect on the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere which would mess with radiocarbon dating.

So the whole point of denying it would be?

Actually, there's a whole lot more at stake than one more flaw in evodates. The magnetic field's pretty important. This is where evofaith gets funny. They'd rather see life go extinct on the planet than commence honest research & try to find out what's really going on. Ignorance and death are preferred over knowledge and life, and on this issue it's pretty in-your-face. The hypocrisy over "global warming" stands right out too, in contrast.

#32 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:10 AM

How does one consider an internally inconsistent story credible? And interpretations of the evidence which are not insulting to the intellect are available; why ignore them. Oh yeah - implications & consequences.


Would you care to present your interpretation of the evidence which is, I'm assuming, not insulting to the intellect?

So the whole point of denying it would be?


Denying what? If the magnetic field degraded enough to effect C14/C12 ratios it would be detectable in tree ring chronologies which we use to calibrate carbon dating. That means that even if an exponential decay in earth's magnetic field were detected (which it isn't) calibration would remove any negative effect on carbon dating.

Actually, there's a whole lot more at stake than one more flaw in evodates. The magnetic field's pretty important. This is where evofaith gets funny. They'd rather see life go extinct on the planet than commence honest research & try to find out what's really going on. Ignorance and death are preferred over knowledge and life, and on this issue it's pretty in-your-face. The hypocrisy over "global warming" stands right out too, in contrast.

View Post


Yes, global warming is most definitely a "get-on-board-or-we'd-rather-you-died" scenario. I think that might even be the subtitle to Al Gore's new book.

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:13 PM

Would you care to present your interpretation of the evidence which is, I'm assuming, not insulting to the intellect?

I don't mind debunking lie after lie after lie after lie; but this one's not a high priority just now. Thread has a topic, and I have other issues I'm discussing and researching. I expect there's already a thread or two lying around anyhow.

The RATE project has already demonstrated multiple fatal flaws in carbon "dating", yet you folks ignore them and pretend everything's hunky-dory. So this time you'd have me believe you'd pay attention? I don't buy it. I choose to prioritize which lies I go after based upon convenience & the emotional attachment of evolutionists to a given lie. I have presented my share of unanswerable questions and unacknowledgeable evidence, and I intend to continue.

You won't shame or embarrass me her either. I note that you're not inclined to discuss the obviously critical problem of the mechanism / prediction mismatch. If I were pushing the nonsense side, I'd try to divert attention away from it too. It's a real loser for evolutionism: give up the mechansim & lose the evoage of the entire Earth, or give up the reversal idea and - ouch! Lose the evoage of the entire Earth there too. As utterly incompatible as these things are with each other and reality, evolutionism isn't prepared to part with either one.

Denying what?  If the magnetic field degraded enough to effect C14/C12 ratios it would be detectable in tree ring chronologies which we use to calibrate carbon dating.

No it wouldn't. Using bad dates to support other bad dates does not make any of the dates good. Why don't you start a thread, and disclose all the assumptions behind your conclusions? I'd also like to see the incestuous relationships discussed, like the "gaps in tree ring data" being resolved by carbon dating.

I have long considered both varve fantasy dates and tree ring fantasy dates to be so obviously flawed that the persons fooled thereby get what they deserve. I'm not inclined to change my evaluation. Here's one hint for those who simply never gave it any thought: trees don't even always grow at the same rate when they're spaced 10 feet apart, let alone 100's & 1000's of miles apart. Worldwide uniform tree growth is one of grossest insults ever offered to your intelligence.

That means that even if an exponential decay in earth's magnetic field were detected (which it isn't) calibration would remove any negative effect on carbon dating.
Yes, global warming is most definitely a "get-on-board-or-we'd-rather-you-died" scenario.  I think that might even be the subtitle to Al Gore's new book.

View Post

And "calibration" is verified by? Matching evodreams, naturally, same as it always was. There's no such thing as independence where these things are concerned. Those that don't "calibrate" to match dogma are discarded, individually or categorically.

#34 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:43 PM

The RATE project has already demonstrated multiple fatal flaws in carbon "dating", yet you folks ignore them and pretend everything's hunky-dory. So this time you'd have me believe you'd pay attention? I don't buy it.


Dude, I've been here all of a week, so I don't know who you're talking about when you say "you folds" or "this time".

You won't shame or embarrass me her either.


?

I note that you're not inclined to discuss the obviously critical problem of the mechanism /  prediction mismatch. If I were pushing the nonsense side, I'd try to divert attention away from it too.


It's difficult to discuss something that hasn't actually been put forth, what mechanism/prediction mismatch are you talking about?

No it wouldn't. Using bad dates to support other bad dates does not make any of the dates good. Why don't you start a thread, and disclose all the assumptions behind your conclusions? I'd also like to see the incestuous relationships discussed, like the "gaps in tree ring data" being resolved by carbon dating.


We can build tree ring chronologies out to at least 9,000 years ago with no gaps using ring patterns so I'm not at all sure how your "gaps" figure in.

Posted Image
http://sonic.net/bri...one/dendro.html

I have long considered both varve fantasy dates and tree ring fantasy dates to be so obviously flawed that the persons fooled thereby get what they deserve. I'm not inclined to change my evaluation.


Sadly, your evaluation has no effect on reality.

Here's one hint for those who simply never gave it any thought: trees don't even always grow at the same rate when they're spaced 10 feet apart, let alone 100's & 1000's of miles apart. Worldwide uniform tree growth is one of grossest insults ever offered to your intelligence.


No one who studies tree rings is talking about worldwide uniform tree ring growth.

It is an oversimplification to say that dendrochronology is ring counting based on rainfall and the physiology of trees. Many other factors are considered. This is especially true with the old bristlecones, as their growth can be affected by slope gradient, sun, wind, soil properties, temperature and snow accumulation.

Posted Image
Posted Image

The more a tree's rate of growth has been limited by such environmental factors, the more variation in ring to ring growth will be present. This variation is referred to as sensitivity and the lack of ring variability is called complacency. Trees showing sensitive rings are those affected by conditions like slope gradient, poor soils, little moisture. Those showing complacent rings have generally constant climatic conditions such as a high water table, good soil, or protected locations.



#35 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 August 2009 - 05:18 PM

Dude, I've been here all of a week, so I don't know who you're talking about when you say "you folds" or "this time". 

'You folks' refers to evolutionists. 'This time' refers to... Hmmm... Some concepts are so straightforward they're difficult to put into different terms without resorting to more complex language. I'm reluctant to increase the complexity of the terms I employ in the present situation.

Regardless of the time you've "been here" I have been operating under the assumption you were'nt born last week. You present yourself as having some familiarity with the issues of carbon "dating"; I did not assume this to be an act.

If you truly don't know about the RATE project, here a link
http://www.icr.org/rate/

Some of the findings have been discussed in this thread
http://www.evolution...pic=283&hl=rate

There's another relevant thread conveniently pinned, which discusses carbon "dating"
http://www.evolution...topic=1143&st=0

And finally, I'll save you some time & give you a link you'll like
http://www.answersin.../rate_index.htm

?
It's difficult to discuss something that hasn't actually been put forth, what mechanism/prediction mismatch are you talking about?

Do you not know the mechanism which allegedly produces the Earth's magnetic field? Your education in these matters is spotty indeed, and astonishingly lopsided. Reading has the potential to remedy this. I recommend the practice.

We can build tree ring chronologies out to at least 9,000 years ago with no gaps using ring patterns so I'm not at all sure how your "gaps" figure in.

Ah, and this you have looked into? Perhaps you might find or start an appropriate thread in that case?

I don't find your source all that impressive
http://sonic.net/bri...one/dendro.html

Principles of Dendrochronology

A principle basic to any study of the past is the principle of "uniformity in the order of nature", first proposed by James Hutton in 1785. It is commonly stated as:

 The present is the key to the past.

I can think of a lot more important considerations for anyone attempting to study tree rings - and not just a few, either. This site focuses too heavily on propagandizing when they should be presenting facts. Indeed, they don't even list any other principles at all in that section, preferring to provide a link instead. I guess those who really want to find out the principles will just have to take the link, huh? Meanwhile, all who pass will be subjected to indoctrination. What nice priorities!

Sadly, your evaluation has no effect on reality.

Of course not. I'm a creationist. It is the dreams of evolutionists which are alleged to have the power to alter reality.

As I have stated before, my belief does not alter reality.

View Post

The assigned role of my beliefs differs from that of the evolutionist. My beliefs are charged with reflecting and conforming themselves to reality.

No one who studies tree rings is talking about worldwide uniform tree ring growth.

View Post

Ah, so simply denying the assumption removes it from the chain of logic? Doesn't work that way. What's required is to reach a given conclusion without employing the assumption; and that they cannot do.

It is noteworthy how ashamed evolutionism is of its own assumptions. Real scientists don't shy away from disclosing the methods by which they reach a given conclusion. Real science isn't a cloak & dagger business of smuggling things in that don't belong. Those tactics are reserved for the deceptive.

#36 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:46 PM

Do you not know the mechanism which allegedly produces the Earth's magnetic field? Your education in these matters is spotty indeed, and astonishingly lopsided. Reading has the potential to remedy this. I recommend the practice.


There's a lot we don't know about the earth's magnetic field and how reversals occur, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for reversals just goes away. You mentioned something earlier about the mechanism/prediction mismatch and I'm just wondering if you could elaborate about what you mean by this and how this invalidates radiocarbon dating. I'm not at all sure why this requires questioning my knowledge of the subject, but I would certainly appreciate an answer.

Ah, so simply denying the assumption removes it from the chain of logic? Doesn't work that way. What's required is to reach a given conclusion without employing the assumption; and that they cannot do.


Once again, dendrochronology doesn't assume worldwide uniform tree ring growth. Tree rings vary in size based on a number of factors previously mentioned upthread. Additionally, dendrochronologists use a wide range of techniques to both screen for possible false rings and extensively cross date samples with other chronologies from an area to ensure accuracy. There is a great summary of this process to be found here:
http://www.ltrr.ariz...chronology.html

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:51 PM

There's a lot we don't know about the earth's magnetic field and how reversals occur, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for reversals just goes away.

More evolutionism of the gaps. Just because something is unknown does not mean you get to make up whatever you please. Most obviously, making up a story that's inconsistent with itself shouldn't cut it.

You mentioned something earlier about the mechanism/prediction mismatch and I'm just wondering if you could elaborate about what you mean by this and how this invalidates radiocarbon dating.

Make a field generator modeled after their model of the earth. The only way to reverse polarity would be for the planet to reverse the direction it spins on its axis. Let a creationist propose anything even 1% so unexpected, and watch the response.

I'm not at all sure why this requires questioning my knowledge of the subject, but I would certainly appreciate an answer.

First you know stuff; then you don't. If you stay here long, you'll see the same pattern from your fellows. Again and again and again...

Once again, dendrochronology doesn't assume worldwide uniform tree ring growth.  Tree rings vary in size based on a number of factors previously mentioned upthread.  Additionally, dendrochronologists use a wide range of techniques to both screen for possible false rings and extensively cross date samples with other chronologies from an area to ensure accuracy.  There is a great summary of this process to be found here:
http://www.ltrr.ariz...chronology.html

View Post

And "crossdating" trees without the same pattern of rings would work how? "Let's compare these two pieces of wood & see if they match. They don't? Cool! Um, I mean ...no problem - they're not supposed to. Just assign whatever date you like."

Either the trees growing at the same time are assumed to exhibit the same patterns or they're not. Go ahead, tell us they're not. That makes for a real convincing argument.

Do the people who make this stuff up think at all? They sure don't think much of their targets. P.T. Barnum had more respect for his audiences.

Tree ring "dating" reminds me too much of homology. What happens when the series match where they're not supposed to? "Convergent ringology"? And it's gotta happen folks. Thick - thick - thin - thick - thin - thin - thin - thick
it's just like binary code. Carry it out to any amount of length at all and they're gonna have a whole bunch of "matches" to choose from. It's mathematically inevitable.

In on-topic news, the link to the object now results

Article not found or expired on Yahoo! News

:D

#38 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:28 AM

More evolutionism of the gaps. Just because something is unknown does not mean you get to make up whatever you please. Most obviously, making up a story that's inconsistent with itself shouldn't cut it.


There are lot's of unknowns in science, that's why we still do science. That being said, the inability of current theories to fully explain evidence doesn't make that evidence go away. For instance, we still don't have a unified theory that combines quantum physics and relativity so that we can adequately explain things like black hole singularities. You'll often hear that singularities are points at which the laws of physics "break down" but this refers not so much to a magical place where anything is possible as much as it describes the point at which relativity stops being able to explain how things behave. Remember, in science a law describes while a theory explains - so a law is really just a description of an effect that never seems to change. So, for instance, there is a law of gravity describing what gravity does and there are theories of gravity which try to explain why. When we get too close to a singularity our descriptions of how the universe should work stop being able to describe the effects we see because we haven't worked out a theory to explain them yet. The key point to keep in mind is that this lack of an adequate theory of everything doesn't make black holes cease to exist; they are still there begging an explanation. In the same way the lack of a complete theory of how the earth's magnetic field undergoes reversals doesn't make the evidence of those reversals cease to exist; they are still there begging an explanation.

Make a field generator modeled after their model of the earth. The only way to reverse polarity would be for the planet to reverse the direction it spins on its axis. Let a creationist propose anything  even 1% so unexpected, and watch the response.


Which model are you referring to? I'm aware of several competing theories for geomagnetic reversals.

And "crossdating" trees without the same pattern of rings would work how?


Pretty much exactly like I explained it before.

Either the trees growing at the same time are assumed to exhibit the same patterns or they're not. Go ahead, tell us they're not. That makes for a real convincing argument.


Trees growing in the same area will exhibit the same overall patterns depending on the weather so tree ring chronologies are limited to the area of local weather patterns. So if you're building a chronology using the Bristlecone Pines, for example, you wouldn't venture over to the European Oak chronology; each chronology is restricted to it's own area. Interestingly enough, however, is that chronologies built on different continents like the two mentioned above, still agree with each other.

Tree ring "dating" reminds me too much of homology. What happens when the series match where they're not supposed to? "Convergent ringology"? And it's gotta happen folks. Thick - thick - thin - thick - thin - thin - thin - thick
it's just like binary code. Carry it out to any amount of length at all and they're gonna have a whole bunch of "matches" to choose from. It's mathematically inevitable.


Except that there are more variables than simply "thick" and "thin", this is why dendrochronologists utilize crossdating instead of just counting up the rings of a single sample in a given area. You can take a look at some of the raw data from tree rings here, here's a sample of what that looks like. That's not even a little bit binary friend.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 August 2009 - 11:24 AM

Which model are you referring to?  I'm aware of several competing theories for geomagnetic reversals.

So now you know some of these things again? Oh well.

I wasn't talking about "theories" for reversals; I was talking about the "standard" model of how the field is generated in the first place. If any of those "theories" can get a field generated in that manner to reverse, why don't you start a thread & brag on it some?

Except that there are more variables than simply "thick" and "thin", this is why dendrochronologists utilize crossdating instead of just counting up the rings of a single sample in a given area.  You can take a look at some of the raw data from tree rings here, here's a sample of what that looks like.  That's not even a little bit binary friend.

View Post

Your second link answers a question of mine.

Tree ring "dating" reminds me too much of homology. What happens when the series match where they're not supposed to? "Convergent ringology"?

View Post


B = correlation higher at other than dated position

There's B's all over that chart. If I'd made the accusation, I'dve been called a conspiracy theorist & caught all sorts of flak. Thanks for sparing me. Take a look folks - it's right there.

#40 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:32 PM

So now you know some of these things again? Oh well.

I wasn't talking about "theories" for reversals; I was talking about the "standard" model of how the field is generated in the first place. If any of those "theories" can get a field generated in that manner to reverse, why don't you start a thread & brag on it some?


I'm assuming by "standard" model you are referring to Dynamo Theory. In which case it appears as though reversals have something to do with intensity(http://www.agu.org/s...oc/hoffman.html), but the relationship remains unclear. Once again, our inability to fully explain reversals doesn't make the evidence for them dissapear.

Your second link answers a question of mine.

B = correlation higher at other than dated position

There's B's all over that chart. If I'd made the accusation, I'dve been called a conspiracy theorist & caught all sorts of flak. Thanks for sparing me. Take a look folks - it's right there.

View Post


You may want to take a look at more than one sample before you get too excited such as this one or this one. Seriously, there's quite a few on the page I linked you to alone and that is just an update page. You'll find that not every set of data makes for a good chronology though some clearly do, and those that don't are still presented and problematic areas clearly marked. That kind of blows the whole "they just discard things that don't line up with their beliefs" out of the water.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users