Re: Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium

On 9 Apr 2007 11:59:54 -0700, bimms@xxxxxxxx enriched this group when
s/he wrote:


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


Nope. The alternative to being confused is to understand something.

Oh- did you get your degree in math?


Of course.



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

Virtually any irregular curve can be described by a sinusoid.

sine curve (also sine wave)
n noun a curve representing periodic oscillations of constant
amplitude as given by a sine function.

Care to explain how that can describe any irregular curve?

All you
have to do is plug in the correct parameters. And anyway, in my
archaeology class where we discusses dendrochronology and carbon
atmospheric levels, they said it was a rather simple sine wave up
until the last 6000 years, which is all we have dendrochronology for
according to the knowledge at the time. (Early 90s)

Your 6,000 year limit has been corrected before.


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.


Really? And how far back can these confirmations extend?

About 60,000 years.

I am curious
how much carbon levels fluctuated beyond dendrochronology. This lends
even more ambiguity to any measured carbon amount.

You can find a lot about the subject at http://www.c14dating.com/



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


How hard is it to scroll up and read the post?

Why should he - that is not the way usenet works.



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.

Sure, and all these dates are confirmed by dendrochronology, which
only extends back about 6000 years.

I do wish you would stop repeating that error.

I have no problem with
dendrochronology, except for the difficulty of correlating tree rings
from truly ancient trees..... danger of false correlation is very
high, simply due to the tiny rings in a tree that has lived thousands
of years. The smaller the rings, the harder it is to be sure of the
correlation.

So use trees with big rings.

And with trees that have only lived hundreds of years, you have even
more possibility of false tree ring correlation, due simply to the
logistical problem of more overlaps.

Not really a problem.


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.


If these concerns were "addressed" then why did not my archaeology
class discuss them? But lets cut to the chase. Why don't you explain
to me in detail how these were "addressed?"

You should be able to find out from the site I gave above.



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


Another ridiculous assertion. I understand chemistry pretty well, and
there is not any particularly complicated chemistry here. It's just an
exponential decay curve, for goodness sake!

So why are you getting things wrong?


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.

This is a false analogy. God supposedly helped to write the Bible.

Evidence?

Thus, he probably would not put scientific errors in it, unless maybe
he wanted to bring down the proud/arrogant. But I don't think he would
use scientific errors to do so.

So. Why so many scientific errors in the bible?


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").

Atheists are likewise prey to what they like to take comfort in. They
hope that eternal hell does not exist, as an example. Now, it so
happens that there is good Biblical evidence that hell is NOT eternal,
but that is a side issue.

There is no evidence for hell, or heaven for that matter.


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.

English Common Law was post-Christian, and Greek Ideas of democratic
government came rather late to Western Civ (about 1776, I reckon.)
Western Civ is a Christian entity, like it or not.

A lot of English Common Law goes back long before christianity.



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

My hands = m c^2

How's that for a great equation? Now who wants to nominate me? :)


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


Islam is not the source of modernity. QED.

No, Islam has done a lot to drag the arabic world down. But before
that....

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest creationist
    ... Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt ... were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Decalogue, Sabbath.
    ... one, as I have described, is when a "new" tree fits the ... sequence equal well in two or more places. ... nice set of rings in the leg of a chair and from that you cleverly build up ... Critics of dendrochronology point out that even ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: "New Amsterdam" - Old Hat
    ... examined using dendrochronology, aka tree ring analysis, chances are they will find that the wood is only a few years old. ... I'm still trying to figure out how you think counting rings will give the age of the desk. ... They buyer has no idea where the tree came from. ... Check Google or Wikipedia for 'tree-ring dating' or 'dendrochronology' for a better explanation. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Arguement from Authority Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... trees with a number of rings larger than 5766, ... scientists assembled lots of the rings of trees together from different ... of the oldest tree from this information, sort of like how they do ... Tree rings are not discrete quantities like DNA, so this methodology ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... trees with a number of rings larger than 5766, ... of the oldest tree from this information, sort of like how they do ... Tree rings are not discrete quantities like DNA, so this methodology ... pretty much bet the farm that the overlap is real and not illusory. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading