Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 61 of 62 (328358)
07-02-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Lysimachus
07-01-2006 6:08 PM

Re: Dating anyone?
ck writes:
Message 57
Lysimachus writes:
Although carbon dating can be utilized up to 50,000 years, admittedly Geochron Laboratory in America refuses to use carbon 14 dating beyond 3000 years, claiming it is unreliable beyond that. ... But even the existence of “50,000? years is imaginary, since when can one tell how old an object is until Carbon 14 testing is employed?
Lysimachus writes:
Message 58
CK, I had responded to that too. There is a lot to discuss--so much, that it can get overwhelming. The best thing I can suggest is to take the time to not just read their responses to me, but read my continued responses to them. It would save me a lot of headaches from having to repeat.
Cop-out. Either you have substantiating evidence or your 'argument' is just an(other) string of assertions. I don't expect others to dig through old posts to try to ascertain my points, so I think this is just trying to avoid really dealing with the issue.
And btw, the way they calibrate the age is by counting the years of known systems and comparing them to the 14C results ... which if your argument were anywhere near correct should result in a scatter plot instead of a nearly linear distribution.
The two lines pretty well define max\min boundaries for the results as well.
But it's not just that -- it's all the correlations of all the dating methods by different systems that would have no other reason to give the same results.
Try {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)< !--UE-->
And see if you can provide the evidence that has so far been lacking from creationists that shows how all these systems result in not just errors but the same errors.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Lysimachus, posted 07-01-2006 6:08 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Member (Idle past 5038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002

Message 62 of 62 (328588)
07-03-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Lysimachus
07-01-2006 2:50 PM

First step
You got that right Brian!
Of course I did, it is high school level history to know that no historical theory is ever proven. It is the same with archaeology, nothing is ever proven, it is only implied. Archaeology is excellent at disproving something, but not so good at proving it.
Welcome to the firt step on the road to understanding what history is. Now you should realise that you can stop saying that Wyatt has found the chariot wheels of the Egyptians involved in the Exodus and start saying something like 'it looks likely that Wyatt.....'.
Just like when we find bones of neanderthal man it doesn't mean we were descendant from a common ancestor, and just because we find dinosaur bones doesn't mean they were destroyed by an astroid, and just because we see evidence of an expanding universe doesn't mean our universe is the result of a big bang!
These are all theories Lysimachus. A theory is the best explanation for the evidence available, and it is never proven. Also, a theory has to be falsifiable, there has to be a way to disprove it, if there is no way to do so then it isn't an historical or scientific theory.
You see where faith comes in? Faith is a requirement, regardless of what we believe in.
I have never disputed it, in fact I probably realise this more than most members here.
BTW, where is the Sea of Reeds and how many reeds are there at Ron's crossing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Lysimachus, posted 07-01-2006 2:50 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024