|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm just interested. I have been looking around the internet for over a year, hoping for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. Whoa dude. This conclusion is not intuitively obvious. Explain how anything survived in this hundred years of weak atmosphere. I assume you mean that the atmosphere became oxygen deficient. How does this lack of oxygen force affect the carbon incorporated into living tissue? Where did the oxygen present before the flood go anyway? It's not like there were lots of oxygen breathers around or that matter, much metabolic activity given the small number of plants and animals. Are you suggesting that for some reason the recovery of plants was well below that of animal life? What tells you that? How did an ecology ever get started under those conditions? Also, remember the effect you are trying to achieve is not just an error, but an error that results in ages that are too great. It appears to me that you are producing errors in the opposite direction. You should be telling us why there was far less carbon in the atmosphere than we expect. You
Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, Pure wishful thinking on your part. But in any event your propensity to simply make stuff up seems infinitely great. I expect you will be trying again.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I have been looking around the internet for over a year, hoping for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity. Where did you look? We can see the patterns left behind from such a process in our own DNA.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Due to there being many many places in which varve-like patterns are formed, just according to the sheer number, its easy to find one "varve pattern" that has a vaguely correlating pattern to other dating methods. And due to us living in the real world, it is easy to find lots and lots and lots of them, not just one.
Its pretty obvious that any beach washes up shells according to moon cycle, spring tide every 28 days is where the most shells are left stranded to be covered by soft windblown beach sand for the next 27 days. If you choose spring tide "varves" (true varves are annual, not monthly) you will be out by a factor of 12, and you will achieve an automatic close match with carbon dating ... No, you will get an automatic discordance with carbon dating. How could you even write such nonsense?
Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, and the dates are established according to current carbon atmospheric content. No.
It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. That does not make sense. Indeed, it appears to have been written by drawing words at random out of a hat. Do you have any idea how radiocarbon dating works?
Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures ... OK, now I'm just going to laugh at you. "Current atmospheric pressures"? Oh my word. Did it not occur to you that you should try to find out what you're talking about before you started talking about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Where did you look? We can see the patterns left behind from such a process in our own DNA Only under evolutionary assumptions can you see these patterns. That is circular reasoning. ie it is often assumed that the differences between the human and for example the ape genome are evolved. Under that assumption some genes are seen as duplicates that have added a new function. The alternative, that the human was designed with two similar genes in that position as opposed to the ape designed with one in that position is never considered due to the fact that evolution is assumed to be the superior theory than creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Only under evolutionary assumptions can you see these patterns. That is circular reasoning. ie it is often assumed that the differences between the human and for example the ape genome are evolved. Under that assumption some genes are seen as duplicates that have added a new function. The alternative, that the human was designed with two similar genes in that position as opposed to the ape designed with one in that position is never considered due to the fact that evolution is assumed to be the superior theory than creation. Could I once more recommend that you stop talking about stuff that you obviously know nothing about. Especially if it's completely off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? The conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about is based on your posts, which reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. You're a typical creationist: you are completely ignorant of the facts that need explaining, of the explanations that have been provided for them, and of the reasoning that underlies the explanations. Now, the last two I could forgive. But the first I find unforgivable. You hope, you believe, you assert, that creationist magical thinking can account for the observable facts, when you do not know what the observable facts are and have clearly never taken the slightest interest in them. You're like a policeman who's decided to fit up some guy for a crime, with no interest in actually solving it. "This murder was obviously committed by John Smith!" "Uh, Sarge, it's a mugging. The victim is still alive." "Don't bother me with details, his fingerprints are clearly all over this gun." "Sarge ... that's a knife."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
And due to us living in the real world, it is easy to find lots and lots and lots of them, not just one. . No, you will get an automatic discordance with carbon dating. How could you even write such nonsense? You are very good with your dramatic language. Let's stick to facts. If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord. It is a common observed phenomenon that diatom shells are washed up with spring tides, they normally form 12 layers a year, not one. Thus the timeframes in that graph should be divided by 12, giving us an age of just over 4000 years, fitting in with flood timeframes. The fact that carbon dating no longer agrees highlights that in fact carbon dating is also inaccurate over those timeframes, proof of this inaccuracy to follow.....
OK, now I'm just going to laugh at you. "Current atmospheric pressures"? Oh my word. Did it not occur to you that you should try to find out what you're talking about before you started talking about it? Again, you are using mocking wording without backing up your statements:http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2004-02/1075764676.Bt.r.html Plants will increase photosynthesis under increased pressures, absorbing more carbon 14 in the process, and absorb less under low pressures. Thus it is based on assumed consistency of air pressures. Carbon 14 dating is also based on assumed consistency in atmospheric carbon production.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about is based on your posts, which reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. You're a typical creationist: you are completely ignorant of the facts that need explaining, of the explanations that have been provided for them, and of the reasoning that underlies the explanations. Now, the last two I could forgive. But the first I find unforgivable. You hope, you believe, you assert, that creationist magical thinking can account for the observable facts, when you do not know what the observable facts are and have clearly never taken the slightest interest in them. You're like a policeman who's decided to fit up some guy for a crime, with no interest in actually solving it. "This murder was obviously committed by John Smith!" "Uh, Sarge, it's a mugging. The victim is still alive." "Don't bother me with details, his fingerprints are clearly all over this gun." "Sarge ... that's a knife." More hogwash, this is a science forum. I appreciate a well written rebuttal. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
nly under evolutionary assumptions can you see these patterns. That is circular reasoning. Wrong. The patterns are there. You can deny their interpretation, but they are there.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Could I once more recommend that you stop talking about stuff that you obviously know nothing about. Especially if it's completely off-topic. I'm just responding to comments posted, I never intitiated off-topic discussions, only responded. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord.
The challenge is not to make stuff up. The challenge is to explain how the many dating methods (carbon, varve, U-Th,... ) are in accord
It is a common observed phenomenon that diatom shells are washed up with spring tides, they normally form 12 layers a year, not one.
Varves are not formed by diatom shells, nor are they formed in tidal water. They are formed in still fresh water lakes by continuous deposition of white stuff and spring deposition of black stuff (or maybe the other way arround, I can't be bothered to look it up). Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Varves are not formed by diatom shells, nor are they formed in tidal water. They are formed in still fresh water lakes by continuous deposition of white stuff and spring deposition of black stuff (or maybe the other way arround, I can't be bothered to look it up). Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt The example given was specifically about varves formed by annual layers of diatom shells, if you have been following the discussion. It was this particular example which correlated with carbon dating. You seem more interested in side topics and insults that just sticking to science or even following the discussion. Varves do form in brackish estuaries, estuaries are sensitive to tidal fluctuations, so your comments are incorrect. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Plants will increase photosynthesis under increased pressures, absorbing more carbon 14 in the process, and absorb less under low pressures. Thus it is based on assumed consistency of air pressures. Carbon 14 dating is also based on assumed consistency in atmospheric carbon production. You are talking nonsense. Your story does not hold together. First, you did not propose an increase in carbon pressure. You proposed a relative increase in the percentage of carbon due to a depletion of some other component, presumably oxygen. But you have not proposed an effect that would cause the partial pressure of carbon dioxide to change at all. Accordingly, this would not produce the effect you are looking for. Secondly, increasing the amount of C-14 produces dates that would appear more recent rather than deeper in the past. Dates we think to be 10,000 years in the past due to their small amounts of detected C14 would actually be much older. How is this helpful to your argument? Thirdly, we actually do have air samples of past atmospheres and no one has found any evidence of the atmosphere you describe. You are talking loud and saying nothing. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined:
|
First, you did not propose an increase in carbon pressure. You proposed a relative increase in the percentage of carbon due to a depletion of some other component, presumably oxygen. But you have not proposed an effect that would cause the partial pressure of carbon dioxide to change at all. Accordingly, this would not produce the effect you are looking for. Secondly, increasing the amount of C-14 produces dates that would appear more recent rather than deeper in the past. Dates we think to be 10,000 years in the past due to their small amounts of detected C14 would actually be much older. How is this helpful to your argument? I was still getting to your other post, because it does contain some good points. You are right that my logic in that case is counter-intuitive. I do admit when I get things incorrect and appreciate a good logical answer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024