Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    This conversation has just been completely nuts, but this just leapt out at me. It's utterly and completely wrong, and nobody within the scientific community thinks that.
    Then you are defining "scientific community" so as to exclude Creation scientists.

    CMI: How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
    by Robert Doolan
    http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano


    Robert Doolan (not sure of his competence) disagrees with you:

    The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.3 If the real dates were not fairly well established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong? So how do you date a volcano? The lesson seems to be that how ever you date it, don’t count on the potassium-argon method.
    True, the reference given in note 3 is also a bit old: J. G. Punkhouser and J.J. Naughton, ‘He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.73,1968, pp. 4601-4607.

    CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
    by Steven A. Austin
    http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates


    I think the title nails the problem with K-Ar : how do you exclude excess argon?

    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    I'm not interested in arguing the point,
    I am sure you prefer not to argue excess argon.

    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    but it just amazes me of the pathology
    And speaking of pathology is of course VERY convenient to people like you.

    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    that allows people to build up an alternative reality that is so thoroughly entrenched that they can make statements like that with such utter confidence.
    So, scientific results are "reality" to you? Any doubt of them is "alternative reality"?

    What about science making statments ABOUT reality, me making alternative statements ABOUT actually same reality?

    Ah, no. Then you'd have to argue!
    Last edited by hansgeorg; 02-14-2017, 10:42 AM.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Hans,

      In general, a valid scientific theory must plausibly explain all or certainly the vast majority of the data. When talking about the age of the earth, you can't ignore a specific data set that implies 200,000 years+
      Yeah, sure. And in general people making those observations should know how to read AND not be too allergic to actually reading the person they are adressing.


      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      in favor of one that maybe can fit in your 6,000 year timeframe. The corals Kirk describes show characteristics that are impossible to explain in a flood scenario.
      I was arguing they were not.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      If you want to say the lower structures which are CORAL 'accidentally just sort of look like coral'
      I was not arguing they were other than coral, I was arguing and am still so, with drilling, how do you know it is all ONE piece of coral which was all growing in that ONE place?

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      then you undermine ALL intelligent design arguments from probability. And in reality you are proposing the impossible as an explanation. They could be faked by an 'appearance of age' argument, but they did not form as the result of a giant flood. You either must show that 4610 feet of coral can grow in less than 6,000 years or accept that this formation and others that imply even greater age are in direct conflict with the hypothesis the Earth is <6,000 years old, which them implication that hypothesis fails.
      See previous. And learn to read and to stay off commenting on people who tick you off so much you have no patience of seeing what they are saying. Hysteria is not an excellent guide to reading skills.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Now you could have googled that hans. Sustenance is nourishment. Subsidence is how much the coral settles/collapses over time. So what that means is that the coral growh rather is COUNTERED by the subsidence of the entire mass. So it's going down at the same time it's going up, and how much it grows per year is the difference. Their point is the coral can't grow above sea level - it must stay under the water. So it can't grow any more than the mass itself collapses per year.
      Sure, I COULD have googled, I was answering that quickly, off the cuff.

      But thanks for clarifying. In that case, the uppermost parts of the coral must have profited from high sea levels during or just after Flood.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      You are right about c14 being limited to the last 50,000 years or so. You are wrong about them being off orders of magnitude with the presense of modern calibrations from tree rings and other other organisms that mark their time on the Earth in readable ways (like the growth marks of coral).
      "You are wrong about them being off orders of magnitude"

      I am giving a feasible model here, only covers C-14 of what I consider post-Flood:

      Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
      http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html


      Note that the Flood year level of C14 in atmosphere is set at 3.461 % of modern carbon, for a real year of 2957 BC. Pre-Flood levels with carbon rising to that level and earlier are of course even greater culprits.

      4974 years ago versus 32 774 - already close to one order of magnitude. Less before Flood = more off.

      "with the presense of modern calibrations from tree rings"

      Covered that one over here:

      Creation vs. Evolution : Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?
      http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/12/hasnt-carbon-14-been-confirmatively.html


      Citing myself :

      These five specimens span only, together, 90 years, of which 58 years overlap all specimina.

      With such overlap and so short spans, dendro might seem even reliable.

      But go back over millennia, you get longer spans with shorter or non-extant overlap and overlaps also from different areas, so one cannot count on all having grown in same microclimate even approximately.
      " and other other organisms that mark their time on the Earth in readable ways (like the growth marks of coral)."

      Taking that one here.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Speaking of which - you should look down the page one article at the subheading

      Tidal Slowdown, Coral Growth, and the Age of the Earth

      Here is a real bombshell for you. Three different factors: radiometric dating, tidal friction slowing the Earth's rotation, and coral growth rates and rings all come together to mutually confirm each other. In a nutshell, we know how much tidal influence slows the Earth. So we can calculate have much shorter a day would have been 300 million years ago from today. We also have fossil corals in formations that we know the radiometric dates for, and we know how to determine not merely daily growth patterns from the corals, but also yealy patterns.

      Bottom line, the number of days per year recorded in the corals in layers radiometrically dated to be several hundred million years old matches closely the calculated number of days we would expect based on the known rate at which the Earth is slowing due to tidal friction. And not just for one set - two different sets, one in the devonian, one in the pennsylvanian, separated by more than 100 million years. They both show the correct number of days per year.

      And the reality is, this kind of correlation is not unique. The green river varves show corrlations to astronomical cycles of precession that vary from the solar cycle of 12 years to the full on precessional cycles of 23,000 and 100,000 years.


      Jim
      I am sorry, but I highly doubt you can accurately read such things as "how much shorter a day was" or "how many days there were per year" on solid, present day remnants, organic or otherwise, of things that lived or didn't live but existed very long ago.

      I also have doubts about precessional cycles, or don't think they happened at all.

      As for varves, I refer to Guy Berthault.

      You are so fanatic about nailing me, that you actually are requiring me to construct a complete theory of everything related, which would be fine, except that the Gish Gallop pace you are keeping is a bit flustering.

      [Edit, I had to insert a few [ / QUOTE ] after his comments.]
      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
        Carbon dates can definitely be off by orders of magnitude due to rising C14 levels, so are no proof.
        No, the only way that carbon dates can be off by "orders of magnitude" is if our counting of tree rings and lake varves is off by "orders of magnitude".

        Carbon dating is calibrated back to about 45,000 years, based on lake varves. Tree ring calibration goes back to about 15,000 years. While carbon dating has been used back to about 70,000 years, it is very difficult to use beyond about 45,000 years.

        So no, there is no reasonable scenario under which carbon dates can be off by "orders of magnitude".
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          I think the title nails the problem with K-Ar : how do you exclude excess argon?
          The answer is simple. You use Ar-Ar dating. (And again, you should have been able to find this with an internet search.)

          Ar-Ar dating (or 39Ar/40Ar dating) is an improvement on the basic K-Ar dating method. It corrects quite well for excess argon. It also gives much more precise dates than K-Ar. Thus, most modern high-precision dating of igneous material relies on Ar-Ar, not K-Ar.

          In case you're not aware of the sordid history of this, here's a brief recap. The scientists who developed Ar-Ar wanted to do a good test of the method and to compare it with K-Ar. So they looked for an extreme case where K-Ar would be thrown off due to initial excess argon. They settled on some recent Hawaiian lava flows which had undergone rapid cooling due to flowing into the ocean. They published these results and showed that K-Ar gave old dates, but that Ar-Ar correctly gave contemporary dates. So what did disingenuous YEC leaders do? They quoted the K-Ar dates from these papers, leaving the impression that K-Ar is always unreliable. They ignored the purpose of the papers and made no mention of the accuracy of Ar-Ar.
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            This conversation has just been completely nuts, but this just leapt out at me. It's utterly and completely wrong, and nobody within the scientific community thinks that. And he just randomly throws it out without any evidence whatsoever to back that up.

            I'm not interested in arguing the point, but it just amazes me of the pathology that allows people to build up an alternative reality that is so thoroughly entrenched that they can make statements like that with such utter confidence.
            And sometimes, it can even get you elected President of the USA.

            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              Yeah, sure. And in general people making those observations should know how to read AND not be too allergic to actually reading the person they are adressing.
              I read you hans, but I didn't take you seriously. And I likely never will. A person who can seriously propose that a neutron star could be a few millimeters wide and stuck to a surface 1 light day away and that angels will move it around and fake all the properties of an actual neutron star can NEVER be taken seriously.



              I was arguing they were not.



              I was not arguing they were other than coral, I was arguing and am still so, with drilling, how do you know it is all ONE piece of coral which was all growing in that ONE place?
              OK - I'll admit I understood that was what you might be implying. But I also dismissed there was any real difference in terms of the expressed outcome. Do you really suppose that the random deposition of Coral broken up and interspersed with a myriad other kinds of flood debris would settle onto an ocean mountain top in exactly the same way that Coral would grow on said mountain top? and that none of the other debris would settle with it? Or that that other debris would happen to settle out just so (and contain only the elements that) would match unconformities that evidence a time when the coral was above water and plants grew on it and around it?


              See previous. And learn to read and to stay off commenting on people who tick you off so much you have no patience of seeing what they are saying. Hysteria is not an excellent guide to reading skills.
              You don't tick me off Hans. And the only one here evidencing any form of 'hysteria' is you. I'm actually quite calm. With people like you and John Martin, I respond to elements of the conversation I find interesting, because I know the chance any evidence anywhere could sway you away from the above mentioned fantasy position is very, very close to zero.

              Sure, I COULD have googled, I was answering that quickly, off the cuff.
              But after your diatribe above about how I did not take the time to fully understand your position, it kind of makes you a hypocrite - does it not? You answered quickly, off the cuff. I answered perhaps a little to quickly - but not off the cuff. My point in the post where the facts I mentioned in my response. These where the elements I found interesting and which made writing a response to you worth the time, not whatever fantasy construct you propose for creating a 4610 foot fake coral reef.

              But thanks for clarifying. In that case, the uppermost parts of the coral must have profited from high sea levels during or just after Flood.



              "You are wrong about them being off orders of magnitude"

              I am giving a feasible model here, only covers C-14 of what I consider post-Flood:

              Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
              http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html


              Note that the Flood year level of C14 in atmosphere is set at 3.461 % of modern carbon, for a real year of 2957 BC. Pre-Flood levels with carbon rising to that level and earlier are of course even greater culprits.

              4974 years ago versus 32 774 - already close to one order of magnitude. Less before Flood = more off.

              "with the presense of modern calibrations from tree rings"

              These fantasy compensations for what C14 dating reveals are refuted by the actual science that comes from tree ring chronologies and carbon rich annual lake varves like those found in Lake Suigetsu.

              And at what school did you earn a Ph.D. in Carbon dating and tree ring chronologies (or at least some related field) that would give me reason find your citation credible? In what credible journal of science has your research been published?

              The other fellow you've been arguing with here (Dr. Bertsche) has such qualifications. You would do well to heed what he is telling you.


              " and other other organisms that mark their time on the Earth in readable ways (like the growth marks of coral)."

              Taking that one here.



              I am sorry, but I highly doubt you can accurately read such things as "how much shorter a day was" or "how many days there were per year" on solid, present day remnants, organic or otherwise, of things that lived or didn't live but existed very long ago.
              Of course you do. Nevertheless, those that study coral growth in depth know what their daily and annual markers are. The rest is just a matter of finding a suitably preserved fossil and counting.

              I also have doubts about precessional cycles, or don't think they happened at all.
              Well, they ARE happening and can be measured. You do realize that new star charts are generated every 50 years in part because of the change in position of the stars due to precession - yes? why update the star charts every 50 years

              As for varves, I refer to Guy Berthault.

              You are so fanatic about nailing me, that you actually are requiring me to construct a complete theory of everything related, which would be fine, except that the Gish Gallop pace you are keeping is a bit flustering.
              Gish gallop?!? I (1) replied to your post and (2) mentioned a fairly significant finding I found interesting. A "Gish Gallop" that doth not make.

              Again, the 'hysteria' lies in your court, not mine.

              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-14-2017, 01:14 PM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                Then you are defining "scientific community" so as to exclude Creation scientists.

                CMI: How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
                by Robert Doolan
                http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano


                Robert Doolan (not sure of his competence) disagrees with you:

                True, the reference given in note 3 is also a bit old: J. G. Punkhouser and J.J. Naughton, ‘He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.73,1968, pp. 4601-4607.

                CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
                by Steven A. Austin
                http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates


                I think the title nails the problem with K-Ar : how do you exclude excess argon?

                I am sure you prefer not to argue excess argon.

                And speaking of pathology is of course VERY convenient to people like you.

                So, scientific results are "reality" to you? Any doubt of them is "alternative reality"?

                What about science making statments ABOUT reality, me making alternative statements ABOUT actually same reality?

                Ah, no. Then you'd have to argue!
                Oh joy, the new Jorge clone has discovered the YEC dishonesty of dating new lava flows contaminated with xenoliths - pieces of much older rock - and claiming the results invalidate all radiometric dating.

                We need a new term - PRTTT. Point Refuted Ten Thousand Times.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  Then you are defining "scientific community" so as to exclude Creation scientists.
                  Correct. They're not doing science as it's commonly understood. They start with a series of conclusions - the earth is young, there was a global flood, etc., and then try to twist or discard the available evidence so that it fits those conclusions. That's not how science operates, so no, they're not doing science.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Correct. They're not doing science as it's commonly understood. They start with a series of conclusions - the earth is young, there was a global flood, etc., and then try to twist or discard the available evidence so that it fits those conclusions. That's not how science operates, so no, they're not doing science.
                    In science you're supposed to follow the evidence to where it leads not try to build a trail to a pre-determined conclusion. The problem with the latter method is that you end up cherry picking through the evidence discarding what you don't like.

                    Incidentally, that is precisely what those who write for the largest YEC organizations are required to do. Allow me to explain.

                    Every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, “prestigious” YEC groups like the AnswersinGenesis (AiG) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing[1].

                    These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to absolutely ignore all evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed and must ignore and reject everything that doesn't. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.[2]

                    When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

                    In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."[3]

                    But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

                    So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

                    There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn’t even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.










                    1. And their material filters its way down to the lesser/smaller YEC groups where it is often copied and repeated verbatim

                    2. Actually there are several points which I heartedly agree with but if you swear in advance to come to a certain conclusion regardless of what the evidence reveals that is your right to do so but don't try to pass off what you're doing as science.

                    3. This view has been expressed repeatedly by legitimate scientists. For instance:
                    • "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin (who also wrote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone.")
                    • "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." --Francis Bacon in Book I of The Advancement of Learning 1605
                    • "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." --Michael Faraday
                    • "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought." --Douglas Futuyma
                    • "A scientist should every morning eat one of his favorite theories for breakfast." --Konrad Lorenz
                    • "Any real systematist [or scientist in general] has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell (in his Unearthing the Dragon)


                    Recently after the discovery of a 14 myo fossil of a type of honey bee in North America Michael Engel of the University of Kansas and co-author of Evolution of the Insects excitedly said "I got to overturn some of my own stuff"

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      Then you are defining "scientific community" so as to exclude Creation scientists.

                      CMI: How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
                      by Robert Doolan
                      http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano


                      Robert Doolan (not sure of his competence) disagrees with you:
                      Doolan may or may not be incompetent, but he's definitely dishonest.

                      Not only does he neglect to mention that volcanoes are usually constructed by a series of eruptions over a period of time, and thus different lava flows on a volcano may quite naturally provide different dates, but he has not told you that the cited reference explains why the K-Ar dates are misleading:
                      Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703769901525

                      The almost ubiquitous occurrence in the lavas of extremely small amounts of xenolithic quartz and of pyroxene aggregates after xenoliths leads us to postulate that the excess Ar is inherited and was derived from contamination of the magmas by older country rock, probably the underlying Mesozoic greywackes and argillites. The excess Ar may be carried in these pyroxene aggregates, but in the case of the Rangitoto lavas, some evidence was adduced that suggests the excess Ar may occur in inclusions of glass within augite phenocrysts. The relatively constant excess Ar in lavas from several of the volcanoes implies that eruption occurred from some form of underlying magma chamber in which the excess radiogenic Ar was uniformly distributed.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      K-Ar dating only works if you remove any xenoliths and inclusions from the lava, otherwise you are not determining the age of the lava, but the average age of the lava and the older rock fragments carried within it. Doolan's failure to mention this at all, when citing an article which discusses it in detail, is lying by omission.

                      This is nothing new - it's been common knowledge in origins discussions for decades - except to those ignorant suckers who fall for YEC lies.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • What a pile of foetid dingo kidneys.
                        Source: ibid

                        You fell a tree. You count the rings from bark to core. No problem at all - but if you fell a tree like a woodcutter, it can’t be that old.

                        A double ring (light and dark) might be sth like 1.5 to 2.5 mm. This means that a tree even one thousand years old should have a thickness from core to bark of 1000 double rings, that is of 1.5 to 2.5 meters. This means the diameter of the tree is 3 to 5 meter thick. Try to fell that and count the tree rings?

                        I suppose those who counted a tree as 5000 years old had gone by thickness (7.5 to to 12.5 m) - but they would have seen thickness from outside and this leaves the question how far the outermost core is in. It happens that trees grow together and what if outermost of a composite tree only has its core 3 meters in from bark.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Here's a picture of people doing what you consider to be impossible:

                        rings.jpg

                        That took ~5 seconds to find. It takes less time to refute your idiocy than it does to read it.
                        Last edited by Roy; 02-15-2017, 09:41 AM.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          What a pile of foetid dingo kidneys.
                          Source: ibid

                          You fell a tree. You count the rings from bark to core. No problem at all - but if you fell a tree like a woodcutter, it can’t be that old.

                          A double ring (light and dark) might be sth like 1.5 to 2.5 mm. This means that a tree even one thousand years old should have a thickness from core to bark of 1000 double rings, that is of 1.5 to 2.5 meters. This means the diameter of the tree is 3 to 5 meter thick. Try to fell that and count the tree rings?

                          I suppose those who counted a tree as 5000 years old had gone by thickness (7.5 to to 12.5 m) - but they would have seen thickness from outside and this leaves the question how far the outermost core is in. It happens that trees grow together and what if outermost of a composite tree only has its core 3 meters in from bark.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Whoever wrote this nonsense has no clue what they are talking about. Someone needs to be taught to use "Google" and "Wikipedia".

                          We don't "fell" trees to count the rings--we take core samples so as not to kill the tree.

                          For a simple explanation of tree rings by a YEC (one of the rare YECs who actually understands radiocarbon dating), see this article by Aardsma.
                          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            Whoever wrote this nonsense has no clue what they are talking about.
                            It's hansgeorg citing himself from the comments section of one the 36 blogs (no kidding) he maintains.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              It's hansgeorg citing himself from the comments section of one the 36 blogs (no kidding) he maintains.
                              Well, now that hasgeorg is face to face with his own ineptitude, I wonder if he'll realize he doesn't know what he is talking about, or with any integrity return to the blogs where he spouted nonsense and admit to his audience he didn't know what he was talking about?


                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                Well, now that hasgeorg is face to face with his own ineptitude, I wonder if he'll realize he doesn't know what he is talking about, or with any integrity return to the blogs where he spouted nonsense and admit to his audience he didn't know what he was talking about?


                                Jim
                                Unlikely.

                                Dude. Why is your signature so HUGE? Jeezow man, it's bigger than your actual post.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X