|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD) | |||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Repeat your position all you like. The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. Trying to lock it in to your PO myth is absurd, when we realize that myth is not supported in any way whatsoever! I repeat my position because it is not in any way refuted by your will-o-the-wisp "scenarios" that are based on nothing more than idle dreams, not on evidence. The fact that you now need several scenarios that are radically different means you are grasping at straws and not using evidence.
The changes hint at two dramatic possibilities: the abundance of elements in 1987A may differ widely from that in our solar system, or a new energy source -- perhaps a dense, spinning sphere of neutrons known as a pulsar -- lies hidden at the core of the object." http://findarticles.com/.../mi_m1200/is_n16_v140/ai_11515679 The date of your article is 1991. It is old. More recent articles include this one, which you quoted without properly citing (thus falsely implying it is from the source above): Page not found | aavso
quote: Note that this article does not refer anywhere to cobalt-57 and it is dated March 2001. It also discusses the neutrinos that you have still to address. There are also errors in this article as nickel-56 has a half-life of 6.075 days and cobalt-56 has a half-life of 77.233 days (iron-56 is very stable) - and this section is also badly worded, mixing up the decay steps with the half-lives. Not sure I'd trust a site with those kind of errors to be factual. Another even more recent article is: Page not found | Sommers-Bausch Observatory | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder
quote: The date on this article is February 2004, and it explains the change in observed light from SN1987A (a) without invoking extra cobalt-57 (and there is no mention of cobalt-57 in this article either) AND (b) with evidence that backs up the energy being transmitted in gamma rays (observed) from the decay of cobalt-56 rather than visible light photons. Gamma rays that exactly match the energy observed in the decay of cobalt-56 on earth: another confirmation that this is cobalt-56 decay being observed. Conclusion: scientists are no longer "baffled" and cobalt-57 was not the cause of the change in observed photon energy from the decay on SN1987A. This article ALSO discusses the neutrinos observed coming from SN1987A:
quote: And it discusses the evidence for the origin of the rings from the merger of a binary star system as one star was absorbed by the other (a process that also explains the blue star going nova):
quote: And there is still more to come:
quote: To summarize: All the data is consistent with decay of cobalt-56.All the data is not consistent with abnormal levels of cobalt-57. Neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light heralded the visible light display of the nova. Radioactive decay was observed in SN1987A. So, the 'theory' is??? I mean, let's face it, it is a stack of assumptions. PO all! Nope, the observations are fact not assumptions. The radioactive decay observed is a fact. The theory predicted the results but the results are not theory or assumption: they are evidence that validate the theory. Stacks of assumptions are not based on facts.
The fusion in heaven is different. There is no decay and fusion in the way we know it here in this temporary state. Therefore we need to ask the state of any event, to begin to be able to determine what went on. Or, like scientists, we could just observe what goes on. The fact that the observations contradict your claims makes them invalid. This is not surprising seeing as your claims are based on wish instead of reason.
They had been claiming for years it was a mystery that the number of expected neutrinos was, I think it was, way too low. Now, what are they doing??? Are they still claiming that the ability to change flavors means we attribute all types of neutrinos as coming from the sun, to make up the shortfall??? I don't think we can do that just on the basis of knowing that they "can" change flavors. That is ramming the evidence into a PO box with a big hammer, to try and make it fit the myth. Your inability to deal with simple information that contradicts your wishful thinking has been noted before. It is very simple: all neutrinos are present and accounted for. Your denial does not change this simple fact. Again you need to deal with the evidence and not your pretend fantasy world. As far as your fantasy world -- or worlds (seeing as you are now making up new stuff) -- you have yet to present one iota of any kind of substantiation, any kind of relevance that shows your ideas are anything but wishful thinking and fantasy. We are still waiting for that. At the current rate of substantiating evidence being provided by you we can project that the universe will end before you present any. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : /quote Edited by RAZD, : vis light compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 66 The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. The presence of a material in the spectrum does not mean that it had to have taken place entirely in this state, or even at all. Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. Message 68 I offered two ideas for deep space. None has been ruled out, That means it's two to your one! No, Nick, no coincidence, this dying state will cease to exist, and the new heavens of the future will be here, the eternal state! But, how could you know that, being but a present state scientist?? What support do we have for saying grains absorbed optical radiation? As for gamma rays, seems to me that either an in split explosion, with the light carried fast towards earth, or a star creation might explain it. As for star creation, all we need is some light to match the energy levels of Cobalt -56. No, some physical effect does not have to be responsible for the rings. We could look at split effects, and/or creation effects! To look only at the possible PO causes is buffoonery. Now, evidence for the future state of the universe, or past state does not exist. I also have agreement with all evidence. Your dust altered light curves, and missing evidence, and PO claims, and unknown rings, etc. are storytelling. This is known as the "god of lies" explanation: every bit of evidence that contradicts your position is disregarded because your god made it that way, miraculously mimicking exactly what is needed, when needed. If we take the evidence of creation - the universe - as a message from the creator, then we have two options: (1) if the evidence contradicts your belief interpretation, then this is a message to you that you are wrong about your interpretation and need to reconsider (this is the path that science takes) OR (2) everything is fake, made up theatrical props, slight-of-hand special effects, all made to fool people. Your choice.
Face it. All I need, is a bible case. I got one. So you keep claiming, yet you have still failed to produce evidence that this is so. Empty claims are nothing but will-o-the-wisp fantasy without substantiation. So far all you have is your "god of lies" explanation(s).
Old is good, as I looked for something that dealt with what was observed near the event. No, you just looked for odd information, information that in no way supports your position for your made-up universes, just something at odds with the standard science. The fact that this bit of evidence has been discredited because it failed to match later observations is irrelevant to you: you are not interested in truth. What you are admitting here is that you are willfully denying the evidence that disproved the cobalt-57 hypothesis AND the evidence that confirmed cobalt-56 in favor of just being an obstinate misrepresenter of the truth, the fact that the evidence shows decay occurred on SN1987A, evidence based on neutrinos, visible light spectrum lines, decay curves and gamma rays with the correct energy levels.
So they dropped the 57 claim altogether, sprinkled in some stardust, ... ... and observed the gamma rays with exactly the energy that matches those produced on earth now from cobalt-56 decay. Thus your "god of lies" provides the answer needed for cobalt-56 to be observed just at the right time and just in the right way ... and yet he could just as easily have chosen to provide the cobalt-57 evidence: why did he\she\it (loki) chose one fake information to make and not the other?
Anyhow, I don't know that you are qualified to rag on this guy, or the article too much. I know enough to know that what was posted was in error and that it showed a lack of critical review of the facts. Just as I know enough to show that all you are doing is posting will-o-the-wisp dreams and not anything founded on any kind of fact. You have a choice: either you are wrong, or you believe in a "god of lies" -- I recommend reality. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : minor change\addition compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
False! In order to see through your lies and fables, Now you accuse me of lies: please document one of them. Be sure to show intent.
... to determine what was a result of creation, or the changed universe, you would need to know more that just this universe. To know what is in this universe I can begin by observing what is in this universe. We don't need to dream up ghosts to see how the real world operates. The problem you are faced with is that the evidence from SN1987A shows decay of cobalt-56. You claim that this is not decay but is actually something else, fabricated by your creator to look exactly like decay, down to the light bars, the neutrinos before and the gamma rays afterwards. You claim it is a massive mock-up of fake evidence that is the "real" truth.
I don't take what we see as evidence of how He created it. I take what we see as a temporary state universe that will soon forever be replaced. Your creator is still responsible for it the way it appears. Omnipotent, omniscient, yada yada. Or are you now saying he is just incompetent?
To know what we do see, we would need to know how the universe changed. You can't, and are handicapped with PO severe limitations. Correction: to assume a change could have occurred there needs to be some kind of evidence for it. Without any kind of evidence, making such an assumption is just plain foolishness. Scientists have look for variations in the constants (like the speed of light) and have not found any. There is no evidence of change, there is no evidence that would change cobalt-56 decay 168,000 light-years away into something else. For instance we can calculate the speed of light at SN1987A as it traveled from the nova to the ring --we know the distance and we know the time interval based on the observations here -- surprisingly it comes out to the speed of light here and now. That is evidence that the speed of light has not changed in the last 168,000 years.
It needs to have a starting assumption to interpret what we see. You use the assumption that this is all there is, and will be, and was. False. I only assume that what we observe is the truth. Then we apply what we know to what we observe to see what we can understand, and in this way increase our knowledge. You on the other hand assume it is a falsehood, and that your creator is hiding the real truth.
Fact is inventing star companions and black holes, and anything else needed to support the PO fantasy is hand waving. Face it. I am questioning the so called evidence, and sister companion assumptions it is wholly based on. The evidence on it's own is my buddy. When we sprinkle stardust on it to make it do what we want, and invent stars and black holes that are MIA, the only thing being denied is your handicapped religion falsely called science. IF we invent stars and holes, and stuff to make the picture look like it is PO. Missing evidence does not invalidate the evidence we can see. That is all you have left from SN1987A: missing evidence. There are several theories for what is missing, and we'll see what happens when we see more evidence.
In other words the assumptions, and PO fables mixed, and lumped with the actual evidence!!! You guys do that a lot, like with the tree rings. As if it was all the same state, and we can just pile it all together in the same mold. IF we tinker with the light curves, and sprinkle stardust on them to make em fade as needed. IF we assume nothing in the pre split universe could have ended up with a light curve that also fades in a few months. Etc. Don't pretend you and your silly PO handicapped, God denying fables have a lock on the truth, or evidence! You have a story that is founded on baseless assumptions of a past universe state you can't begin to prove. It is full of mysteries, and gaps, and missing evidences, and absurdities. When pinned down to actually present the black holes, or dust info, or specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths. The light curves are not tinkered with. We have the visible light curves unchanged from before, and to them we add the gamma ray light curves: the result is more complete information. Hypothesis used to make a prediction, then that prediction is tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or false. Thus the solar neutrinos, first hypothesis based on zero mass (and no flavor oscillation) is shown to be false; second hypothesis based on mass (and thus flavor oscillations between 3 different 'states' of neutrino) is shown to be valid: new observations of those other flavors show they are present in solar radiation in just the numbers predicted. The same thing occurred with SN1987A and cobalt-57 being falsified and the cobalt-56 being verified by later observations of gamma ray photons in just the right amount to fit the decay rate curve. This evidence is not made up, it is looked for based on the theories. If that evidence had not been there, then that would mean trying new theories and looking for evidence based on what they predict. This is how science works, advancing on the basis of new evidence, discarding falsified hypothesis and retesting validated ones. Your failure to understand how science works does not invalidate it. You, on the other hand have not provided any kind of explanation for the light curves observed other than claim that it is NOT decay, thus it is a fake decay, false evidence, that the true creation is hidden behind a facade of falsehoods.
I thought I even remembered something a while back, where you were sort of questioning why they needed to invent dark matter, or dark energy, etc? Remember also, that MOST of this universe is UNKNOWN, and claimed to be those things. What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know. We do know that SN1987A is 168,000 light years away and that the light from it showed the decay of cobalt-56. Soon we will see the light of the elements made in this supernova as they impact the ring around the nova and again cause the light absorption bars that identify the elements. The rational bets are on iron-56 being a visible portion of that mix, with very little cobalt-56 remaining at that time. You don't have evidence for your claims, you can't explain why the evidence says what it says, and you are left with delusions of reality ... ... or a reality of delusions fabricated by a god of lies. A reality where jack-in-the-beanstalk is real and giants walked in clouds. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 18 Not if all the trees on earth grew only after the flood. Sorry you seemed to have missed that. Well that is the point of the dendrochronologies built up of continuous records of tree growth: that the samples used all MUST have occurred after the flood because there is no break in their chronologies.
When pinned down to actually present the...specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths. Hardly. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Going back to dendrochronology, the two living trees show a correlation between age and width of tree rings for their entire period of overlapped growth. In each tree we have a continuous record of tree growth, with continuous tree rings from germination 2832 BC to the present for the Methuselah tree and from 2,880 BCE to 1964 (when it was cut down) for the Prometheus tree. Thus the period of overlap is from 2832 BCE to 1964, a period of 4,796 years. The widths of the rings for each year for each tree show the same pattern of wide and narrow growth due to climate variations. The variations in the rings from year to year are such that no other alignment of those two trees would match the growth pattern for all the rings where they are overlapped (ie - take Prometheus and set it's last ring 1000 years in the past on the Methuselah tree and compare the climate data: they don't match for the now 3,796 years of overlap - or any other). This validates matching tree ring growth patterns for aligning other samples of other trees. We can think of this correlation as a simple kind of code between climate and age. Take these phrase segments as examples:(from Dendrochronology - Wikipedia) We can see that there are some occasional errors in the data, but that overall the full correlation can be determined. The more data we have the less likely the errors will affect the final chronology. This is part of the methodology. Dendrochronology
quote: In these simplified pictures we see the typical growth pattern involved and then a correlation between the rings of the standing live trees (Methuselah and Prometheus) with the tree rings of recently dead, still standing trees (several samples in several groves) and then with older samples where the trunks are now lying on the ground. The key issue is the matching of the growth patterns extensively over the lives of the trees. That 4,000 year old standing dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth for the two living trees in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees. http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html
quote: Likewise the 5,000 year old fallen dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees and the several samples of dead standing trees. We know that there was at least 796 matching tree rings between these fallen ancestors and Methuselah and at least 844 matching tree rings between these fallen ancestors and Prometheus, because the total record stretches for "almost 9,000 years into the past" -- and likely the period of overlap was more than this. A few fallen dead trees having matching growth patterns in over 800 tree rings with the living trees is not an accident. That there are also dead standing trees that bridge this period of overlap and also exactly match the growth patterns for both the two living trees and those few fallen dead trees that lived over 5,000 years only confirms the overall match. In the correlation code example above, the first two example represent the two living trees, the middle two examples represent the standing dead trees and the last two examples represent those few fallen dead trees over 5,000 years old. Then we can compare this chronological relationship with climate with similar chronologies derived from the European Oaks: Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
quote: Content Not Found: Ingenta Connect
quote: And we see the same overall pattern of climate with age in each of three different derived sets of data, and we can see the magnitude of possible error in the methods over those times: Not Found
quote: Before the correction of the German Oak series it was very close to the Bristlecone Pine series and either way -- with the correction or without it -- we are now left with a maximum error of ~40 years in over 8,000 years - less than 0.5% error. Note that oaks and pines are not in the same genus, family, order, class or division and they only share the kingdom Plantae taxonometric classification. Finally we can - and have - tested these correlations with a second measure, one that is hidden within the tree structure until measured, so there is no way to use this information in creating the alignment of the various samples of trees, but one that clearly would show any errors in such an alignment: the 14C/12C ratio in the various rings in the various samples. Because of the way carbon is incorporated into the tree structure during the year of growth, the tree ring for each year reflects the relative proportions of 14C and 12C available to the tree at that time. Whether 14C decays now at a different rate from in the past or not is irrelevant, because it is a simple truth that the tree rings cannot be the same age and have different 14C/12C ratios: we can test the climate alignment for errors and any errors will show up as different 14C/12C ratios. No such errors are found. It also becomes quickly apparent, due to the actual ratios of 14C/12C found generally declining with ring age, that samples could not be placed severely out of sequence without such errors showing up. The dendrochronology age to climate relationship is consistent across species, validated by multiple samples in each of the three different chronologies and verified by 14C/12C ratios. If you want to see the actual data for the graph of 14C age against tree ring age see http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm Dataset 1 through 7 are the results from different labs. The first column is dendro age, the second column is "14C age", the sixth column is " wiggle match uncertainty" -- generally zero. This is a measure of how accurate each data set is compared to the total data. There are 2,237 samples in the first data set, just to give you an idea of the scope. You can translate this into (14C/12C) of the sample if you know what to do with the information. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your science lies. Hard to separate things that only concern the present, in science. The rest are lies, and fables. If you echo them, and spout them, why, don't get all sensitive. You begin to see the hole you have dug yourself, but it is not science that lies to your belief. Reasonable people find it easy to separate out fact from fantasy, and these people will always come to the same conclusion in the end, based on the facts. One cannot base a testable hypothesis on fable and fantasy - and thus these are quickly ruled out when working in science. But we are also talking about the evidence, not the science that makes the predictions -- the evidence that shows (1) light from cobalt-56 by the light spectrum (2) decay of cobalt-56 according to 77 day half-life, (3) neutrinos that came from SN1987A before the light, (4) gamma rays with precisely the energy seen on earth from cobalt-56 decay. These observations are not assumptions, they are facts. No, for your belief to be true the universe is made of lies, and it was created that way.
Yeah, right. Most of what you claim is in this universe is dark this and dark that. You observed squat. You observed something that is an effect of something, and cook up PO causes. If you remember I don't necessarily buy the dark stuffs, it is just one explanation for some anomalous behavior that does not match the theory of gravity. Another one is Brane Theory. Both of these are based on the evidence of observed phenomena and thus still rate higher than your fantasy world of "something" different at some time in the past -- what and when left undefined.
If that were a problem, you could talk about the dust, and missing stuff. No, if I had more evidence I could talk more about the dust and missing stuff, but this still does not affect the evidence that we do see, the evidence that shows decay. The evidence shows the existence of cobalt-56 on SN1987A as it is formed and as it decays. There is a drop in the visible light curve after 500 days, but it is not sudden - there is a transition. We don't know the exact cause but we do know that after this point we can also detect gamma rays from SN1987A that have exactly the same energy as those produced by cobalt-56 decay here on earth (and not in a stellar fusion reactor), AND we know that when we add these together they add up to the decay curve for cobalt-56. A cause of dust is not a great mystery, seeing as we are dealing with a star that is blowing up and blasting material into space right left and center. We also know this material is not visible because we can't see it ... except for the latest evidence from the nova: that this sphere of dust has reached the ring and impacted it and caused it to glow with the light frequencies of the material in the first waves of this "dust" -- Page not found | Sommers-Bausch Observatory | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder
quote: We know that the first element to hit the rings is hydrogen. My bet is that when the material that was thrown off at the 500 day mark and after hits this ring that the element we will see in the collision light is iron (specifically iron-56, from the decay for cobalt-56). In between we should see carbon, oxygen, and some other products of stellar fusion of a star in its death-throws. Evidence of what really happened.
Well, no, try and tell the truth, now. I don't claim it is not decay. I simply said that, so far, the reasons that I have seen that supposedly evidence that are fleeting, and weak. IF it was proven to be decay, we simply can have that from a starting point of a different past. So far, there is no need for that. Now you are equivocating. In Message 47 you say; "Your claim that there is decay there is wrong." The rest of this quote is you once again attempting to move the magical mystery goal-posts, but even that won't help you. As noted before, IF there is no decay in your altered different fantasy state world, AND if there is decay on SN1987A, THEN it occurred after your "change" and the decay is 168,000 years old in this universe. THIS means we can use decay for dating things at least as far back as 168,000 years ago.
Limiting wicked man's lifespans by changing the state of OUR universe is not incompetent. WE are the reason that the universe is in the state it is in! We are the reason decay exists!! We are the reason light is slow! Etc. Do you have evidence for this claim that humans are responsible for ALL of the universe being a lie? As far as I can tell, we can't even influence the orbit of the moon: enlighten me.
Correction. The spiritual is not something that present physical only universe folks can find physical or science evidence for. You are hooped! The present temporary state laws should have been the same since they came to be. No such change in OUR constants need exist at all!! You just need to stop assuming our constants were all there ever were for no reason. All you prove is that you have a fantasy for which you have zero evidence. If there is no way we can find evidence of it in the present universe, then once again this means that the light from SN1987A traveled at the speed of light and took 168,000 years to get here, that this is entirely consistent with the universe. The other possible conclusion is that the universe is a lie, a fake, a theatrical construct, designed to mislead.
Before going further, can you show us the basis of why this is claimed?? (That the light traveled from the "nova" to the ring at our light speed? Simple: we know the distance and we know the time: we can measure it out in half-lives of cobalt-56, and we can measure it out in the frequency distribution of light bars in the spectrum of the light (# of vibrations per second). Last time I checked distance divided by time is speed. It's not rocket science.
Well, whoever assumes what aside, let's concentrate on the actual facts and evidence. Then it is time for you to start. So far you have ignored the evidence or pretended that the it has been falsified somehow by your creator. The actual facts and evidence show cobalt-56 in the light spectrum and cobalt-56 decay in the light curve. The actual facts and evidence show neutrino detection before the light from the nova reached earth. The actual facts and evidence show gamma rays with the precise energy observed in gamma ray emission from cobalt-56 decay on earth.
Well, missing evidence certainly does not clinch the case for the side missing evidence either. Think about it. And seeing as my evidence is not missing for cobalt-56 decay and other aspects, whereas yours is entirely missing throughout this entire thread, who exactly are you talking about?
Well, visible light curves that mean something under what assumptions? That is the question. Under the assumption that they are the truth. That is all we assume of any evidence in science.
Is it really though?? Why assume that they changed flavor to your favorite and preferred taste?? What evidence is there that they all change just the way you claim?? Oh, right, that would be, I think.....NONE. Work on that. No assumption made: it is observed. Your denial and personal incredulity noted. Once again you are left with a choice: either your personal interpretation (and this whole fantasy altered universe is your personal interpretation) is wrong OR the evidence lies and the creator of the universe made it that way. Your choice. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : corrected "(1) light from cobalt-67" to "(1) light from cobalt-56" compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Fine. I need no break with trees that grew in a week. You have yet to establish any valid basis for assuming whole trees could grow in just one week. Talk about blind unsupported assumptions. This still fails to explain tree rings (caused by growth at different rates due to seasons - noted in Message 8 and still not dealt with) and 14C/12C values being different in the different rings. This also does not explain the shape and form of the Bristlecone Pine trunks and growth patterns: Bristlecone Growth
quote: This means that the mature trees only grow on one side, the side sheltered from the major (winter) storms by the rest of the trunk, and leaving bare wood on the exposed side to create their characteristic appearance, bare wood that can erode away with each storm and winter season (freeze thaw cycles). Here is an example of a cross-section cut from a Bristlecone Pine: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplot/applications.htm
quote: Your growth in one week would not create this asymmetrical appearance, instead the growth would be concentric and fairly uniform in cell size throughout the growth, with large cells and no discernible ring formation. Your "explanation" fails to cover all the facts of the evidence and it is contradicted by the rest of the evidence: it is a false concept.
OK, so are you saying that in Prometheus, there are 4700 plus physical rings, and we are not missing any now?? Yes or no will do! No and Yes. It is truly amazing how you seem to be so incapable of processing such simple information. There are 4844 continuous growth rings visible and countable on the cross-section cut from the Prometheus tree - there are no missing rings in those 4844 continuous growth rings - BUT those rings do not include the core rings from when the tree germinated. As noted several times, the weathered side of the tree had weathered and eroded to the point where these rings were no longer part of the trunk when it was cut down: thus the tree was older than 4844 years -- how much older we can't know because that information is missing. Look again at the picture above to see the typical cross-section for a Bristlecone Pine and see how there is no growth on the weathered side of the tree.
No, we can't! Only up till the split, then the rings represent much shorter times than seasons. But there were still variations in the days, that we no longer know today. Wet periods, etc. This does not explain the 14C data and it does not explain the difference in cell growth between early growth and late growth in an annual ring: About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
quote: Aha!!! Here they admit to lumping!! They need to look at the pre present state rings alone. Simple as that. Otherwise it is useless. And this simply ignores the correlations between the rings that show the same climate patterns and same 14C levels for thousands of rings. Simply ignoring the evidence does not make it go away or in any way explain the correlations. Unless you assume the evidence is lying.
Correction: 10,000 rings, not years. Big difference. Long as they don't try to anchor it all to a present state universe and growth! Again, rings do not equal years anywhere but in this state. No lumping together in the big assumption. Great, so we can take the dead tree, and it's 4000 rings, and assume it took anywhere from, say, from 4-6 years, at about two rings a day. - So?? I'm laughing. Correction: 10,000 rings that show annual patterns of growth with early wood and late wood exactly matching the patterns shown above. Rings that also show different 14C levels consistent with age for annual rings. Unless you assume the evidence is lying. And you still have not provided any mechanism for rings to be formed in your scenario.
"In order for carbon dating to by accurate certain foundational assumptions must first be true. We must assume to know that the rate at which carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 hasn't somehow changed throughout the unobservable past. We must also assume to know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime." Accuracy of Carbon Dating So, the foundational assumptions are totally dependent on a same past state you cannot prove!!! Except that I am not using carbon-14 dating here, just the observable levels of 14C in the samples. Those remain the same for any year of formation no matter what you assume about the decay rates being the same or different. Tree rings that are the same age cannot have different 14C levels, the ring samples do have different 14C levels, and therefore they cannot be the same age. Unless you assume that the evidence is lying.
Now, if this simplified version is anywhere near true, the whole idea of carbon beyond this present state is bogus. "Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ”dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards." http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Don Batten is a fraud, a con, a scam. Here his article uses outdated information -- he is referring to one of the oak dendrochronologies used in IntCal98, which has now been completely superseded by new samples added to the data set where all the samples are aligned by the climate markers, the data set used in IntCal04. This use of 14C dating also does NOT apply to the other oak dendrochronology OR to the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology -- simply speaking Don Batten is not telling you the truth.
Dendro age does not exist save in your minds. Not beyond this state, as far as ring/years go. There goes the one column!!! Now, 14C age does not exist beyond this state either, so there goes the other column!!! All you have left is your little 'wiggle match uncertainty'. I'll have to say that it is even more uncertain than they dreamed. Only if you assume the evidence is lying. This brings us back once more to your essential belief in a god-of-lies, a god that creates false information with the intention of deceiving those looking for the truth. So far your only argument in this whole thread is based on all the evidence lying. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
? 67? Do you mean 57? Sorry, typo. Meant cobalt-56. I've revised the post accordingly.
Where reason is defined as belief in the myth of a same state past. The problem is, they have no facts for that. No, reason is defined as assuming that the evidence is the truth, and that logic can be used to make valid conclusions based on that evidence. Your alternative is to assume that it is all lies, and thus the conclusions are false. The problem you have is that this (a) makes your creator of that evidence a god-of-lies and (b) means that all is illusion, even your concept.
Except that when it fades faster than required in that scenario, all you do is sprinkle stardust on it!! Nope: what the scientists did was look for other evidence, and they found it in the gamma ray photons that matched the missing visible light photons, gamma rays with precisely the same energy as we see here on earth from cobalt-56 decay.
So?? Why would they not move at about the same speed as light?? They have mass. This means, according to relativity theory, that they cannot move faster than the speed of light, and thus they left the star before the visible light did. This was predicted with the time-frame observed, so this observation validates the predictions and bolsters the model used to make those predictions. Or we need to assume that this evidence was fabricated in just the right way to make this appear so.
"Assuming that ... nearly thin regions." Gamma-rays and X-rays from SN1987A | Nature This is from April 1988, less than a year after the nova was first observed. Evidence from later observations over-ride these comments.
The temporary state is no lie. Thinking is was all there was, and will be all there will is where you got muddled up thinking a lie was involved. Sorry, you are still stuck with your version of events being entirely dependent and the evidence being false, and false in a very specific way intended to mislead those looking for the truth. You are stuck with your creator of such a universe of lies being the cause of it all. Of course he logical extension of your argument means you cannot even be sure of last Thursday: the entire universe could have been created last Thursday with all memories and evidence in place. Certainly it is no argument that what you claim occurred did in fact occur that way, for your past world is just as subject to the whim of your unknown "past state" -- it is no evidence FOR your position. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The evidence is only the truth when we can understand what we see. When you start from the myth, and filter evidence through it, it can no longer be called the truth. Not unless the filter was verified. It can never ever ever ever be. Ever. Job 38:24 - By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? The PO projection into space that you do is a cute little show. But the creation reality coming at us is the show of shows. Or for yours! But I have the bible, which is better than nothing. No, the earth could not have changed last week. WE observed that, as we did last year, century, etc. But guess where it all starts to end, and NO longer be recorded??? - The first kingdoms after the flood, which you of course have dated wrong!!! That is a real barrier. No, all you have done is thrown out evidence with a wave of your hand. When you start with the assumption that the evidence is false you end up with a universe that is false: the universe that includes your bible and the stories in it. These stories also come from before your "change" time and you cannot be sure that the words used in them mean the same thing now as they did before the "change" time: what do they mean by "light" and "earth" and "wind" and other words? You don't know without assuming they are the same as the present -- something you have been at pains to demonstrate is a false assumption. It applies to all things or none. You are hoist on your own petard. All you have is a null hypothesis, it does not prove anything, other than that it is a foolish hypothesis. Now, care to address the evidence that shows the earth is old? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, your "peeps" and whimpers are become less and less noisy.
From Message 1:
The purpose of this thread for me will to present evidence for the case that the age of the earth as portrayed in the museum is false and that a global flood could not have occurred withing that time (or any reasonable approximation), and for you to defend the age and flood occurrence as portrayed with whatever evidence or argument you wish to make. I have presented the evidence. You have not defended the age and flood occurrence as portrayed in the museum with any kind of evidence or even a cohesive argument. My job is done, and I don't need to provide you with any more evidence (and there is a lot more), as you haven't dealt with the evidence provided yet. You have not begun to do your job, all you have done is dodge the issue, out behind your woodshed, running around in circles, a chicken with it's head cut off. The sad thing is that you cut your own head off. Your argument consists of claiming that things are not as they appear to be. That this includes your entire fantasy seems to elude you, but there it is. The fact that this makes you a believer in a god that lies and intentionally produces false information that is extremely intricate in it's mockery of fact also seems to elude you, but there it is. The only conclusion I can reach is that you don't care to present a valid argument so long as you can claim to doubt the evidence based on some personal fantasy. That is delusion. Science does not assume that the present applies to the past. They assume that the evidence is the truth. Thus when the spectrograph of the light from SN1987A matches the specific spectrograph for cobalt-56 we assume this is the truth -- it does not match any other element. When we see decay occur on a 77 day half-life we assume that this means the decay occurs on a 77 day half-life. That this also matches the decay rate for cobalt-56 is not just a coincidence, it is confirming evidence. When scientists count the rings on trees they do not assume that they are all annual rings: they look at them for the characteristics that annual rings have and they note the variations in those rings that are consistent with climate and the environment the trees are growing in, and when they have verified the rings are consistent with annual rings then they count them. Scientists do not assume that the levels of 14C are constant in the atmosphere, in fact the reverse is true: they look at the 14C data from the tree rings from three different chronologies that ALL MATCH 14C levels with age AND match between them for climate changes. They look at those things to see how things WERE different in the past. You are not interested in evidence or data or any part of reality. All you are interested in doing is hear yourself speak. So run around a little more chicken little -- don't forget to say "the sky is falling" again: have a last peep or two. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ypot Edited by RAZD, : two compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
False, you show you don't even comprehend the argument. They are as they appear to be! Your claim they always will be and were is what is blown away by your utter lack of any evidence or proof. Now you are dancing around the issue of your failed argument.
If there is cobalt, so what?? The light curve faded faster than we would expect. So you attribute that to dust. Yet you never get down to the details, like the tree rings pre split. And when it fades faster that expected we also assume that is true. The match, then depends on the right amount of dust, no?? Prove there was the right amount, don't assume it. No the curve is interrupted by -- guess what -- the star exploding, which is preety surprising seeing as it is exploding. The decay didn't fade, it is still there shown by the gamma rays as well as the visible light. You are unable to deal with the evidence -- just like you can't even get the evidence from one tree right.
They assume that conditions were the same, and yes, they do assume rings equal a year. Face it. No, they assume that summer section plus winter section add up to a year. Face it: you can't deal with the tree evidence, you can't even get it right.
I never said they do assume the levels are constant, I don't think. And, I have told you many times to stop the silly lumping. Focus on the pre flood rings. There aren't any: the growth is continuous, therefore they have to be after the flood. It is really a simple concept. over 12,000 years of continuous tree ring data and you can't deal with the first tree. Comprehension deficit? Yeah, in spades. Your argument is tired and refuted, and repeating it adds nothing to the debate, which you have singularly failed. Trees, ice layers, lake varves, super nova all show consistent information. You don't. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : last compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nothing new. Yawn.
There is not just light expected from decay there. That is why they invent black holes or missing stars. Something else is in the in here they don't account for or comprehend. You still fail to deal with the spectrograph light that shows cobalt-56, and you still fail to deal with the evidence of decay of cobalt-56. You still fail to explain the 77 day half-life decay rate. You cannot explain it for the visible light in the first 500 days, and you cannot explain the later correlation with visible light and gamma rays afterwards. You cannot explain the energy levels of the gamma rays exactly matching those of cobalt-56 decay here. You cannot explain the details of the evidence.
They also assume that the yearand patterns extend into the unknown deep past, which they also assume for no reason was the same. Thanks for admitting that! They are too some rings that extend beyond the 44, or 4500 level. You admitted that already. The simple concept is your unflinching unbased belief that the state was the same then, and that the ring pattern HAD to be formed as no. Nonsense. There were wet parts of a day, water coming up from below. There were windy bits, there were days and nights, maybe some flooding now and then, and etc etc etc. There is no reason at all to say that the rings were not laid down in the faster growth of the past. None. You were asked to focus on the suspect era pre 4400 level rings, and show the data there only. Then you need to show why it had to be PO. You can't. Really. Your myth is busted real good. Your fantasy still fails to explain the details of the tree ring formation that the scientists look for -- the details caused by extended periods of winter weather. You cannot produce these details with your fantasy. Your fantasy also still fails to explain the details of the levels of 14C found in the different rings, levels substantially different throughout the tree ring record. You still fail to deal with the tree ring evidence that comes from a single tree. You fail to make any argument for a young earth and you fail to refute the evidence for an old earth. Denial is not refuting. Fantasy is not evidence. You fail to make any case for a "split" date at all, whether it is 4400 or 4500 or whatever years ago. Without a valid argument for such a "split" all you are doing is whistling in the dark. You have failed to make any case for a different past, just posted fancy fantasy as if if were reality: it isn't. Without a valid argument that there really was a different past you have an empty argument devoid of rational. You have failed to make your case. Totally. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : splitpast compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024