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

On Jun 20, 2:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

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.

This from someone who thinks that eels spawning in the Atlantic ocean
is evidence of a sunken continent??

Any objective person with
honest discussion on his mind knows that the age of the Earth is both
a evolutionary and geological entanglement.

Ray, you aren't an objective person, and you have never hand "honest
discussion" on your mind. The age of the Earth is independent of
evolutionary theory.

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.

Maybe, but it is correct. Evolution doesn't make any assumptions
about the age of the Earth.

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)


Darwin did not "turn a blind eye" towards the age estimates. Kelvin's
suggestion that the Earth was 100 million years old came after Darwin
identified evolutionary changes. In any case, Kelvin was wrong.


and asserted that it must be
infinetly longer to accomodate common ancestry by microevolutionary
model.

Darwin did not assert the Earth was "infinately older". He also
didn't make any distinction between "microevolution" and
"macroevolution".


Here we have the most respected evolutionary biologist of all
time, and his "imprecise thinking" determining the age of the Earth.

Darwin did not "determine" the age of the Earth. He was content to
let the geologists do that. Darwin did have some training in geology,
but he was above all else a biologist.




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.

Actually, it does. It says that the "benchmark" date is the
present. Any past dates are in relation to the present day.

My point was that evolution and evolutionary
geology do not have a objective benchmark date to stand on because of
deep time.

Which, as explained, is not true. There is no such thing as
"evolutionary geology", by the way, just geology.


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.

Ray, you may be unable to comprehend millions of years, but not
everyone has that handicap. Radiometric and other dating techniques
are not "speculation" and there is no "need". The dates given by
radiometric means are objective.


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.

That's not a "benchmark" that any geologist today uses. And why
would Lyell have to 'guess' when he had calculations?

Miraculously, Lyell's date is still ballpark
close to the accepted date of how long ago said period ended.

As has been explained to you before, that's not surprising, or odd.
Lyell was a accomplished scientist. Why do you think his dates would
be inaccurate?

To have
modern radio-dating techniques confirm Lyell justifies the
"miraculous" description.

Or, it's simply confirms that Lyell knew what he was doing. Also, As
John Wilkins has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any citiation
for Lyell making an acutal statement about the end of the
Cretaceous. Where did you get your figures?








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.

But when you are asked for your "sources" they invaribly turn out to
be either outdated, biased, or otherwise compromised. (assuming that
you actually reveal your "sources")


Your commentary above
is pure error and fancy from the first word to the last.

A good description of your "paper", I'm sure.



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.

As suspected your "sources" turn out to be 'new age' numerology, and
outdated claims. Hershel, by the way died in 1871. Smyth in
1900. isn't it possible that some work has been done since then?









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.

Which was wrong.



DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob
    ... show that the earth is between about 4.2 and 4.6 billion years old ... Well, first, not that you will ever recognize the distinction, the age ... Earth and assigned it to be the exclusive domain of geology, ... Polaris is the pole star/North star today and its light shines down ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very ... But this approach ruins the other pretensions of the false geology & ... fraudulent time scale based on fosssils & radio-nucleides decay. ... I enjoy at all times reading your evidence on the Plate Tectonics ' ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... > realise what Newton's bulltalk of the sun around the earth is the same ... The exact analogy in geology is ... the oblate shape of the Earth that the couple of gravity - rotation ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... in the field of geology that has furthered mankind. ... fossils were because there was no dating methods when the column ... Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Welcome home, Discovery
    ... >>> The earth cools and freezes, the earth warms and becomes tropical. ... we are heading toward an ice age. ... But I did take ALL the Geology courses I could ... This is just an EFFECT of the Pollution, and if the Effect of the ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)