Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium

On Apr 5, 6:04 am, b...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Sure. Try this site:http://archaeology.about.com/od/dating/Dating_Archaeological_Sites_an...

I will check that out.



Someone else has already done so. I would also like to take this
opportunity to point out that the error in C14 dating that has to be
corrected by tree rings is only a few percent, certainly not enough to
make any difference to you.

Actually, since Carbon dating has a sinusoidal distribution, there are
multiple answers to any given reading. It is NOT just a simple
exponential decline at all, and thus you cannot get just a single
answer.



You have been given such a link. If dendrochronology goes back 8000
years, then some trees lived through 6000 BP.

That's a big if. You have to realize that a lot of assumptions are
going on, and you are talking about thousands of tree rings. For it to
overlap, you have to some how be sure that a particular tree ring
width corrleates with another trees rings, and you have to pick this
out carefully out of THOUSANDS of tree rings. (And thats only if you
are lucky enough to find trees that are thousands of years old).

And if you cant use trees that go back thousands of years, you have
even more overlapping problems, trying to decide between different
trees with hundreds of tree rings, which requires more overlapping by
a factor of ten, which is even more prone to possible false
correlation errors. (You might correlate the wrong rings with each
other).

In other words, the whole thing has way too much guesswork and
assumptions. Its just the nature of the thing, can't be avoided. But
there is certainly room for reasonable doubt. I'm not saying I
automatically discount the whole thing. It is just a little on the
iffy side of things.



Not as more than a smudge. A star in that position would have been
nicer, until telescopes. And by the way, the idea that the Andromeda
galaxy was created just to give us an attractive smudge in the sky is
the most ridiculous hubris imaginable.

Hubris? What about the hubris of trying to overthrow the fundamental
bedrock of our Western Civ? (The Bible and Christianity)? That seems a
heck of a lot more hubristic to me. What, all previous generations of
westerners based their entire society upon a gigantic lie? But
nevertheless were somehow able to become world dominant nevertheless?
I'm sorry, that is a much more hubristic position to take.

We know that God exists due to biochemical complexity among other
things. That means he would assist the true religion to prosper. Which
means Christianity is "likely" to be true. Note I did not say
ABSOLUTELY PROVEN to be true. Just "likely" to be true.

And what is more to the point, virtually all of our western
institutions have Christian ideas at their core, even if the explicit
Christianity is submerged in "secular" language dressing. From "human
rights" to "freedom" to "equality" to "love thy neighbor" we all are
like fish, swimming in the water of implicit Christianity. And some of
us are doing our best to poison the very water we swim in, by
attacking the faith that we live, move, and have our being in.



Yes, you're right. Sorry. It's a bristlecone pine, and it's 4767 years
old. You need overlap with dead trees to go back 6000 years, or 8000.

Okay, good. And don't you think it takes quite a bit of guesswork to
correlate tree ring width from a tree that has thousands of tree
rings? And the problem of possible false correlations gets even worse
if you have to work with shorter-living trees?



Are the assumptions wrong? If not, why bring it up? If so, critique them.

I AM critiquing them. I think there is too much guesswork going on,
and furthermore the carbon distribution is sinusoidal, which means
there are multiple answers to any given reading, rather than a single
answer you would get from a true exponential decline curve.



You were listening about as well as you have been here in TO, which is
to say you were clutching at anything that might vaguely support your
preconceived notions, and ignoring the rest.

Not a fair characterization at all.



A mud flow is just a wet ash flow. Close enough.

Simply not true. Much more than ash was being sloughed off the
mountain. In fact, most of the ash was airborne, and the mud flows
were massive straight down the mountain, overturning trees like
matchsticks and so forth.



No. The water didn't cause stratification. It just dug gullies (canyons,
if you like) in unconsolidated, layered tuff.

Which WAS stratified. Why do you keep denying the obvious here?



Only if you throw out all of geology.

Not ALL of geology. Only the bit of dogma that says stratification can
only happen over millions of years. You see, in science, if empirical
data contradicts your theory, you adjust your theory. But you knew
that.



The more I think about it, the more self-contradictory your position
becomes. If you think the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in a
worldwide flood, you have to reject all geological dating, because the
sediments are well correlated to vary from Precambrian (counting the
metamorphosed layers at the bottom) through Permian. And if you do that,
you lose all the benefits of old-earth creationism.

The key fact is that stratification can be caused rapidly. The non-
stratified sections of the Earth will still be valid places to apply
geological dating. It is only in well-defined strata that we could
allow the possibility that they were flood caused, and thus not very
amenable to normal dating correlations.

It's impossible to accept the geological time scale and still accept a
worldwide flood, much less several of them, unless you propose one that
left no trace. No flood can leave sediments that vary in age by millions
of years.

Actually, one flood could simply deposit strata on top of another
strata that was already there. And the other strata could have been
deposited by another flood, or perhaps not. Just because SOME strata
is caused by rapid flooding, does not mean it ALL is.

The only thing that has been disproven is that ALL STRATA are
automatically the result of millions of years. All the rest of geology
is pretty much intact.



What, you can just wave your magic carbon-wand and discount all dates?
If I have a device that measures lengths only to the nearest 10%, and I
claim that a tree is 40 feet high, are you going to tell me that the
tree may be only 3 feet high, because my measurement is inaccurate?
That's not thinking, it's taking any excuse possible not to think.

Again, you are ignoring that the distribution of carbon is sinusoidal.
Your ten percent figure is simply not true. A periodic sine wave leads
to multiple solutions that vary from one end of time to the other. I
still remember my high school pre-calculus! Hope you have not
forgotten yours.



It's so hard to figure out in advance what parts of science you accept
and reject. You appear to be an old-earth creationist who rejects all
knowledge of how old particular rocks or fossils are. What's the point
in being an OEC if you do that?

I don't reject "all knowledge" of the age of rocks. For example, I
accept the reverse magnetic polarity of rocks in the spreading ocean
floor zones. This seems quite conclusive evidence that the world is
very old, since the earth's magnetic polarity switches every few
million years. (I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact amount of time
it takes to switch).

The only thing I reject is that all strata are automatically caused by
millions of years. Some strata can be formed in a matter of hours. Mt.
St. Helens proved that.

just previous creation, that puts the new creation at the K/T boundary,
65 million years ago.

I did not say the dinosaurs were from the "just previous creation."
All I said was they lived "before" 6000 years. "Before" leaves a lot
of possibilities open.

but nearly 65 million years later. Nor were there any modern species at
that time. And you just got finished claiming that the Grand Canyon
sediments were all laid down in a single flood, perhaps the flood of
Noah. That's incompatible with any sort of time line.

I may have implied that, but I did not explicity say it. Maybe the
Grand Canyon was laid down by several different floods, not just one.
It could have been laid down by each successive biosphere destruction,
when God decided to destroy one biosphere and replace it with another.
My main point was, that stratification can be the result of rapid
processes, as Mt. St. Helens showed.



Can you make any sense out of your view of geology? How many creations
were there? What was created each time? How does each correspond to
standard geological periods? Which was the most recent creation, and
what does that correspond to? And what does the flood of Noah correspond to?

I am going to have to do a heck of a lot more research before I can
answer those questions. My main point was simply that stratification
is not automatically the result of millions of years. I base this off
an actual empirical observation. I start with empirical observations,
and then build the theory off of them. I don't have a fully fleshed
out theory at this point, as you can probably tell. But that is no
reason to automatically reject it. Scientists should not automatically
reject theories.

Juno,
This above is just the main objective to post this thread, everything
about western civilisation..........
However, may I post to you that:
1). Unless you are a Jew or Middle-eastern people, you have inherited
or being forced upon with the Christianity (when I say forced upon,
you can imagine what the cruelty of Christians killing all the non-
believers during Crusade!!!!)
2). Well, we don't have the problem with western strong civilisation
now.....but in modern days, any bad culture should be discarded,
right? Or you wish to maintain the arrogant attitude that is true of
US.....?
3). The Christianity had taught aggression all the way from ancient
ages to now, the golden rule "an eye for an eye....." you must be very
happy to subscribe to it.
Then, with your strong western civilisation, who in this world is to
offend you or bully you........? It is actually the other way
round.......
4). For every knowledgeable man, one knows that the bible is just out
to con people and had conned you all by the billions and in so long a
time. You believe in all the fairy tales, fine, that's because you
failed to use your own logic to analyze the events
storied.........just an example: "Jesus was cruxified and
killed.....but he was the son of god....and why can't his god save
him..........or because he deserved to be killed......?"
No body, no Christian, or preacher, or pastor or your pope can answer
this question.......and yet you take for granted that his death was to
sacrifice for mankind....who give him this mission....? And the non-
Christians also benefited? What a nobel thinking........
For a kind human nowadays, we won't want any person to be hung without
dreadful criminally proven guilty, let alone ask someone to die for
mankind....would you die for mankind? Or in the name of mankind?
5). Civilization evolve over time, and mankind always advanced for the
better but yet you want to preserve Christianity, even if it is based
on false notions and tales.......this shows that you are no mordern
people and you don't care a shit about truth...........

Yap

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium
    ... opportunity to point out that the error in C14 dating that has to be ... and you are talking about thousands of tree rings. ... worldwide flood, you have to reject all geological dating, because the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium
    ... and you are talking about thousands of tree rings. ... worldwide flood, you have to reject all geological dating, because the ... one flood could simply deposit strata on top of another ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium
    ... and you are talking about thousands of tree rings. ... worldwide flood, you have to reject all geological dating, because the ... one flood could simply deposit strata on top of another ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium
    ... archaeology class where we discusses dendrochronology and carbon ... except for the difficulty of correlating tree rings ... And to claim that Western Civilization is based on Christianity is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner ... What if the angel too is a metaphor? ... Other flood stories have less resemblance. ...
    (talk.origins)