Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob

On Jun 20, 4:19 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1182275636.947499.6130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Jun 18, 12:42 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1182193248.406823.254510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jun 17, 3:34 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 17, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Evolution at real time is too slow to observe. Do you know why
the Earth is claimed to be 4.5 billion years in age?

But, of course, here comes some silly punctuated ad hoc reply.

No ad-hoc reply needed. A dozen different isochron dating methods
show that the earth is between about 4.2 and 4.6 billion years old
with the greatest sample cluster around 4.5 billion years.

What external method exists to check accuracy of said dating?

The key word is external.

What would you consider a valid external check?

External: Known age of a material via interlocking historical and
archaeological agreement. Radio dating fails these rare glimpses when
they arise from time to time. Sometimes it succeeds sometimes it
fails. The latter falsifies any notion or assertion that radio dating
IS accurate. I assure you that it is extremely rare for these external
events to occur since both disciplines rarely agree on anything, but
they do occur.

Given that the different isochron dating systems use different
elements, and that each system is therefore independent of the
others, each isochcron dating method serves as an external check on
the others.

Negative. External, in this context, means "nothing to do with radio
dating." How do you establish a beginning bench mark date, that is,
the date from which all others are built upon? The Bible uses
historical and archaeological corroboration from other Near East
nations and star alignments to establish its chronology. The
alignments can only occur once every twenty-six thousand years; the
"procession of the exquinoxes" is a full proof and external method to
establish a benchmark date, which is 2141 BC. In this year Thuban, (or
the Dragon Star) was the North Star and only in 2141 BC did its align
perfectly with the entrance passage way of the Great Pyramid and shine
its light all the way to the bottom. It will take about twenty-six
thousand more years for this to happen again. Since continental drift
has occurred it will be somewhat off at that. Other than that nothing
at all happened in 2141 BC. The important thing is that we have a
objective starting benchmark date to establish Biblical chronology.

Now, how does evolutionary dating schemes establish its beginning
benchmark date, the date all other dates are built upon?

Well, first, not that you will ever recognize the distinction, the age
of the earth falls under the purview of geology, not biological
evolution, and your refusal to make that distinction shows your
careless, imprecise thinking.

Your opening salvo is downright silly. Any objective person with
honest discussion on his mind knows that the age of the Earth is both
a evolutionary and geological entanglement. Since you have
specifically excluded the evolutionary equation from the age of the
Earth and assigned it to be the exclusive domain of geology, this is
classic anti-gestalt, anti-cross discipline narrow-minded thinking. We
know Darwin was as much a geologist as he was a transmutation-
biologist. He arbitrarily turned a blind eye to the then known age of
the Earth (100 million years - tops) and asserted that it must be
infinetly longer to accomodate common ancestry by microevolutionary
model. Here we have the most respected evolutionary biologist of all
time, and his "imprecise thinking" determining the age of the Earth.

Be that as it may, the benchmark for
geological dating is the present - note that all geological dates are
given as BP, or before the present. Note also that for the magnitude of
most geological dates the difference between today and the building of
the Great Pyramid is so much smaller than the age of the geological
event under consideration that the difference is less than negligible.


Benchmark dating "is the present." This says nothing about ***a***
benchmark date or dates. My point was that evolution and evolutionary
geology do not have a objective benchmark date to stand on because of
deep time. Nobody can comprehend a million years much less 5 or 50 or
4.5 billion. All you have is speculation, masked as science, driven by
need.

We know that the "benchmark" dating used to establish all published
dates was a guess by Lyell in the 19th century as to how long ago the
Cretaceous period ended. Miraculously, Lyell's date is still ballpark
close to the accepted date of how long ago said period ended. To have
modern radio-dating techniques confirm Lyell justifies the
"miraculous" description.

Note also that the present provides a much more reliable 'benchmark
date' than architectural alignments: in order to get the precision you
describe (a specific year) using the precession of the nodes you would
need a shaft with a diameter-to-length ratio on the order of 1/5000, or
a shaft one inch in diameter would need to be about a hundred meters
long to give the kind of angular accuracy to distinguish between 2141 BC
and 2142 BC. Besides, that 'entrance passageway' stuff is hogwash -
just a little googling yields the information that the descending
passage in the Great Pyramid dips at an angle of 26 degrees, 31 minutes
from horizontal. The latitude of said Great Pyramid is 29 degrees, 59
minutes North, which means that the line of sight to the north celestial
pole dips 29 degrees 59 minutes to the horizontal, which means that the
descending passage is 'aimed' at a spot three and a half degrees below
the north celestial pole, whch means that whatever star 'illuminated the
entire bottom of the shaft' was a) not the Pole Star, b) so illuminated
the shaft only once a day, as the star made its apparent daily circle
about the true pole, and, importantly, c) would occupy the same spatial
relationship to the true celestial pole (i.e. have the same declination)
twice, roughly 550 years apart (if my back-of-the-envelope calculations
are correct). This last means that you have two dates, 550 years apart,
on which a particluar star would shine straight down the descending
shaft of the Great Pyramid at least once during the year, which sort of
brings into question the uniqueness of your 'benchmark' date.


I have plenty of sources to back up my claims. Your commentary above
is pure error and fancy from the first word to the last.

http://img2.exs.cx/img2/4890/00000001.jpg

source of diagram: Peter Lemesurier, "The Great Pyramid Decoded" 1977

Rounded to the next whole number, the passage entrance shaft is 5449
polar diameter inches in length. A polar diameter inch is 1/000th of
an inch longer that the standard British inch. That shaft was
perfectly aligned to Thuban, the North Star in 2141 BC an
impossibility for any human being in ancient times. Today, the Paris
Observatory is several degrees misaligned to true north, the best we
have.

Dr. E. Raymond Capt M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A., SCOT
"The Great Pyramid Decoded" [Artisan Sales, 1971]

Dr. Adam Rutherford F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., in Egypt 1925, 1950, 1963-5
"Pyramidology Book 1" [London, 1957]

Peter Lemesurier; "Decoding the Great Pyramid" [London, 1977]

According to Sir John Herschel, Astronomer Royal of England
(discoverer of the planet Uranus) and Professor C. Piazzi Smyth,
Astronomer Royal for Scotland:

The long descending passage is aligned to true north, that the angle
of decline is in direct alignment with the pole star/North star.

Polaris is the pole star/North star today and its light shines down
into that passage but only partially as the alignment is off. When
researchers discovered this they immediately set out to determine if
any pole star/North star ever was in perfect aligment to shine its
light all the way to the bottom.

According to all the sources cited above, ONLY in 2141 BC did the
light of the pole star/North star shine down to the bottom of the
descending passage.

The precession of the Equinoxes is about a 26 thousand year cycle,
this means that about every 2000 years the pole star/North star will
change.

In 2141 BC the pole star/North star was Draconis/Dragon Star.

The key word here is independent.

The agreement between independent isochron dates for the age of the
earth makes it highly unlikely that the results are wildly
inaccurate. What would make you think otherwise?

<snip rest>

Circular reasoning.

Outside of all radio dating techniques, how does evolution check the
accuracy of its dating techniques?

As I mentioned before, 'evolution' per se doesn't use radiometric dating
- geology does. Well, it is not real easy to use historical or
archaeologocal evidence to corroborate radiometric dates of 4.5 billion
years before present, there being neither history or archaeology then,
or indeed for quite some time thereafter.

Yes, my earlier point.


In fact, I am not going to
attempt to offer corroboration of those dates, but I will offer
independent corroborating evidence for dates in the 300 to 400 million
year range, and suggest where further such corroborating independent
evidence might be found for much older dates. Here goes.

It is well known that the rotation of the Earth is slowing down, due
primarily to tidal friction in the Earth-Moon system. This means that
the days are getting slowly longer, and there are fewer of them in a
year, since slowing of the Earth's rotation does not affect its orbital
period about the Sun (the length of a year remains constant, but the
length of a day changes). Current estimates of the long-term rate of
change of the length of day, based on several kinds of astronomical
evidence ranging from ancient observations of eclipses to modern
observations using Very Long Baseline Interferometry, are on the order
of 2 milliseconds per day per century - that is, the day is 2
milliseconds longer than it was a century ago.

Certain coral polyps record daily growth rings in their (the correct
word escapes me at the moment, so in desperation I use the word: )
shells, as well as recording annual variation. Among these corals are
some that were quite common and widespread during the Devonian period,
and analysis of the growth patterns in these fossil corals shows that
during the middle Devonian period there were about 400 days in a year,
or each day was around 21.8 hours long. If you do the math, you
discover that it would take about 370 million years for the length of
day to increase from 21.8 to 24 hours changing at an average rate of 2
milliseconds per century. This independent age estimate corroborates
the radiometric age estimates for the middle Devonian.

Alas, there are no fossil corals that are 4.6 billion years old; indeed,
as far as I know the oldest rocks found so far on the surface of the
earth are about 3.98 billion years old. However, there *are* old tidal
deposits - tidal rhythmites, which record both diurnal and annual
cycles. I don't know much about the analysis of such rocks, how old the
oldest is, what results are out there, who is doing the work, but the
important thing is that in principle at least there is an 'external'
test.

What I have done here, Ray, is two things: I have shown that published
data for the Great Pyramid shows that the descending passage cannot be
used to establish a single point in time using astronomical alignments,

You have not cited or referenced any published data concerning the
Great Pyramid - just your wild (yes, they are wild) unsupported
assertions.

and that radiometric ages for the Middle Devonian are supported by
fossil records of shorter days and modern estimates of the rate of tidal
braking of the rotation of the earth. Further, I have suggested that
length-of-day data may be availble from much older rocks than Middle
Devonian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have also read your geologic assertions and I have no opinion.

Ray


.

Loading