Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium

On Apr 4, 9:40 pm, b...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
You are very confused about this.

There is no way I would be confused about this. Hello, I was a math
major in college. I understand exponential decay curves like the back
of my hand.

The alternative to being confused is rather less desirable, trust me.

Oh- did you get your degree in math?

The carbon level has to decay along a uniform exponential decay curve
from an initial level. It is the initial level (of atmospheric carbon)
that varies, the carbon decay curve does not. The carbon decay curve
is very predictable, with little to no fluctuation.

Good grief. How on earch could you misconstrue my point so badly?

dead organisms with the abundance curve of C14 in the atmosphere. That
curve is not sinusoidal, but irregular.

Yeah, and that is my entire point. The level of the abundance curve is
irregular, thus rendering multiple possible solutions for any

Previously you claimed it was sinusoidal, which is regular. Which is
it please?

graphical analysis of the exponential decay curve of the carbon. Come
on now, I am starting to think it is YOU who are confused.

get different dates for the same amount of C14 in a sample. It just
means that you can't compute the date if you know the C14 abundance in
the atmosphere.

You have this exactly backwards. If you already know the atmospheric
C14 abundance when the tree ring was grown, you can calculate the
exact expected exponential decay curve. It then becomes 100 percent
predictable and calculatable.

You can experimentally confirm the 14C levels in other ways, you know.
Rock samples and ice cores and stalactite sampling can all be used to
calibrate 14C levels.


small, insufficient to make C14 dating useless even if you ignore them.

Wrong. Your premise is wrong, and I am starting to doubt that you even
understand the mathematics involved. Only a mis-understanding of the
math could make you misread my point so badly. What did you major in,
just curious?

It is impossible to make out what was being said, since you seem to
have snipped important parts of the previous post.




You might. But the greater the overlap, the less likely that is. This is
not a serious critique of dendrochronology.

You bet it is.

Do you have any inkling of how many people have been doing this for
how many years? Do you think there isn't extensive optical technology
now to confirm what people have been studying for decades, or more?
Did you know that people who do this kind of thing date wooden homes
and furniture from the 1500s before they brush their teeth in the
morning? And- this is important now- since we have artifacts of
***known age*** like parchments and animal skins from ancient Egypt
we can calibrate all of our methods to those known dates.

In short, there's a wealth of techniques that corroborate the
technique, and you have not paid attention to any of them. You have
attempted to critique the technique but have provided no scientific
concerns that were not addressed years ago.





In your opinion as an expert?

It is my opinion as someone who understands mathematics, which it is
starting to look like you don't.

You might understand the math, but you aren't understanding the
interaction between the math and the chemistry.




You make the absurd assumption that biblical literalism is synonymous
with Christianity, when it has never been so, at least as far back as
Augustine.

That is not nearly so absurd as you think. In fact, the Bible stands
up rather well, especially when you start to realize that what people
have tried to argue is "bible based YEC" was actually contradicted by
the Bible itself.

No, it isn't as absurd as John thinks. It is considerably more absurd.
There's nothing of science in the bible, and any attempt to use it as
such is predoomed to failure. You may as well look for a recipe for
chocolate chip cookies in an art history textbook.




No, that's called a strawman position, since nobody holds it.

Every atheist, unconsciously perhaps, takes the position that the
Western Civ was based on a gigantic lie. In fact, since virtually all
mankind has always believed in some sort of deity, the atheist is
saying that virtually every person who has ever lived was living on
lies. That is quite an empire of lies, is it not? The empire of lies
is nearly universal, according to atheism.

No. Atheists think that some religionists lie. Kent Hovind, Duane
Gush, and their ilk are liars. A liar in this case is someone who's
been corrected, publically, on an issue, yet who continues to speak
falsehoods. On the other hand, most people who engage in religious
activities (according to atheists) are fooled, or deluded, or do so
because they find comfort in the activities (my niece likes to call it
"feel-good self-hypnosis").

And to claim that Western Civilization is based on Christianity is
just silly. Western Civilization owes considerably more to pre-
Christian Greek ideas of government, English Common Law, and Italian
cuisine than to Christianity.




And everything you say above is nonsense. We don't know that God exists.
And who says Christianity prospers more than other religions? Islam and
Hinduism seem to be doing pretty well. Are they the true religion too?

We DO know that God exists, because of the tremendous complexity of
biochem.

Have you been nominated for a Nobel Prize for waving your hands faster
than lightspeed?

As to Islam and Hinduism, I consider that they have some
truth in them, but not the fullness of truth, ergo their societies are
not as dominant as Christianity.

You're barking mad. Why don't you go to Mecca and see how dominant
Islam isn't?

I have to get going, will come back and continue this later.

Can't wait.

Oh, and before you start in again on 14C dating, here you go:

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=dating.html

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html

Chris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We may have a problem
    ... But something weird happened when I talked about math ideas on ... it is your problem, just stop lying. ... The only problem is you posting your lies. ... do not post LIES, crank ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Pissed Catholic Mother
    ... The concept of eternal hell makes it the only thing that matters. ... Christianity does not make you "miserable." ... But if you are educated about math in the WRONG way, ... phobia for the rest of your life, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Pissed Catholic Mother
    ... The concept of eternal hell makes it the only thing that matters. ... Christianity does not make you "miserable." ... But if you are educated about math in the WRONG way, ... phobia for the rest of your life, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... > just say so when it suits them. ... lets assume that you are correct about math people ... > the level that they can make their lies accepted against the truth, ... > when their lies are challenged they simply label people who disagree ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Need Help with the Math
    ... confuse yourself with arguable statistics and specious relationships. ... There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. ... Clearly John needs help with the ... What part of the math is incorrect, ...
    (rec.boats)