Posted on 05/28/2008 6:09:31 AM PDT by Sopater
Wow. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Casting pearls before swine are you? And yet somehow not engaged in juvenile name calling while calling us all swine within the same post?
“Carbon dating matches up well with tree ring dating and sedimentary deposition analysis. The earth may be 4 Billion years old, It may be six, but it is billions of years old.”
You may belief whatever you wish. I prefer facts.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. Evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.
Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.
Sources from which YOU can learn from:
Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47–54, 1986.
Newgrosh, B., Living with radiocarbon dates: a response to Mike Baillie. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 5:59–67, 1992.
Rohl, David, A Test of Time, Arrow Books, London, Appendix C, 1996.
If you have truly studied this field for over 25 years, you've wasted your time and come up short.
That is professional effort, not "armature" effort.
Most people, even ignorant people would acknowledge that there have been extreme weather changes in the past - the ice age, shells from the ocean where it is now a desert and on and on it goes. You don't take ANY of this into account and why you can't sell me junk science.
Can you show me how changes in weather affect radiocarbon dating? Will they alter the decay constant, or what? What about sea shells in deserts? And how do you know what we do and do not take into consideration?
I don't believe you know anything about this. You just read some passages on a creationist website and they sounded good to you so you pasted them here.
Your responses all seem to be based on creationist websites. And they have no first-hand knowledge of the subject either -- they just know that somehow radiocarbon dating doesn't support their religious beliefs.
Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999, pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.
You posted that already, and I already responded to it.
You miss the major point. So again, I hear about all this work you supposedly do and still you can't admit you're wrong. The more you write, the less truthful you are appearing ... You might want to quit and try to maintain some semblance of credibility ... .
Did you read any of the links I posted earlier? I'll post them again in case you missed them:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
All of the objections you have raised are discussed in the first two articles. You really should take a look.
No, you have not addressed this:
Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.
You have also skipped over how the eye “evolved” or the heart “evolved”.
I skip left wing like like “religious tolerance”. It's more pseudo science that is based on feelings, not facts.
If you can't figure out how weather and climate affect carbon dating and where there are deserts today, that have shells in it, I rest my case in being totally convinced that you are not as learned as you would like others to believe. THIS is common knowledge. Make that your next assignment, in this hobby of yours, what deserts have shells buried in the sand. Pretend the ice age never happened as well .... .
Truly, you need to quit while others may still take you seriously.
As for the evolution of the heart, what about the detailed abstract I posted above? Did you miss it, are just going to ignore it because it disagrees with your a priori convictions?
Unless you can come up with something more meaningful than quoting creationist websites, I have work to do.
BTW, here's a starting point for your homework on shells found in the desert.
Searching for Ancient Seashells
In The Desert
by Pamela Dimmick
Imagine that we are hiking in California’s blazing desert, 100 miles from the Pacific coastline. Imagine the huge mountains and the winding canyons that would surround us. Cacti dot the sandy landscape. What is the last thing you would expect us to find? Seashells! Yet find them we will: in dried out washes, on an ancient shell reef, in canyon walls.
http://www.desertusa.com/mag06/may/shells.html
It's one of MANY deserts that contain fish fossils and shells.
Unless you can stop quoting from junk science sites, I can't take you seriously. You will not find facts there or even evidence to support your views. It's propaganda based on an ideology not science. You have yet to present SCIENCE in any form as evidence for your personal views.
Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
“Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.”
“Random changes” caused this?
How did “random changes” create a “depression”?
What caused these “random changes” that supposedly caused a “depression”?
How did a “pit” “evolve”?
What caused the “pit”?
Lots of supposition here ... that is not realistic. You can't honestly believe this? They eye is more complicated than that.
I do give you credit for having the courage to post your reply. It doesn't add up and minimizes the sophistication and completely of the eye but at least you gave an explanation.
There is no way that the explanation you gave explains how the eye works. It's full of weasel words and science fiction and suppositions for an outcome based result - “evolution”. It's how all evolutionists go about their hypothesis.
Here is how the eye actually works:
How does the eye work
by Dr. Stephen Westland
Almost the whole of the interior of the spherically-shaped eyeball is lined with a layer of photosensitive cells known collectively as the retina and it is this structure that is the sense organ of vision. The eyeball, though no mean feat of engineering itself, is simply a structure to house the retina and to supply it with sharp images of the outside world. Light enters the eye through the cornea and the iris and then passes through the lens before striking the retina. The retina receives a small inverted image of the outside world that is focused jointly by the cornea and the lens. The lens changes shape to achieve focus but hardens with age so that we gradually lose our accommodation. The eye is able to partially adapt to different levels of illumination since the iris can change shape to provide a central hole with a diameter between 2mm (for bright light) and 8mm (for dim light).
The retina translates light into nerve signals and consists of three layers of nerve-cell bodies. Surprisingly the photosensitive cells, known as rods and cones, form the layer of cells at the back of the retina. Thus, light must pass though the other two layers of cells to stimulate the rods and cones. The reasons for this backward-design of the retina are not fully understood but one possibility is that the position of the light-sensitive cells at the back of the retina allows any stray unabsorbed light to be taken care of by cells immediately behind the retina that contain a black pigment known as melanin. The melanin-containing cells also help to chemically restore the light-sensitive visual pigment in the rods and cones after it has been bleached by light.
The middle layer of the retina contains three types of nerve cells: bipolar cells, horizontal cells, and amacrine cells. The connectivity of the rods and cones to these three sets of cells is complex but signals eventually pass to the front of the retina and to the third layer of cells known as retinal ganglion cells. The axons from retinal ganglion cells collect in a bundle and leave the eye to form the optic nerve. The backward-design of the retina means that the optic nerve must pass through the retina in order to leave the eye and this results in the so-called blind spot.
The rods and cones contain visual pigments. Visual pigments are much like any other pigments in that they absorb light with absorption sensitivities that are wavelength-dependent. The visual pigments have a special property, however, in that when a visual pigment absorbs a photon of light it changes molecular shape and at the same time releases energy. The pigment in this changed molecular form absorbs light less well than before and thus is often said to have been bleached. The release of energy by the pigment and the change in shape of the molecule together cause the cell to fire ¾ that is, to release an electrical signal ¾ by a mechanism that is still not completely understood.
http://www.ct.gov/BESB/cwp/view.asp?a=2849&q=331482
Again, there is no way that this was a “random” event that “evolved” over millions or even billions of years! It's sheer impossible!
BTW, they still don't fully understand how the eye works and yet evolutionists will try and tell you they know how it "evolved" - again without fully comprehending how the eye works. It's amazing that they have the gall to claim how it originated but don't understand how the eye works TODAY. It's a pity ... that "evolution" tries to pass itself off as "science". Evolution is merely a hypothesis by definition. It is not a theory, since it has not been proven.
Once again you stumble over the most basic tenets of the scientific method. How are you going to impress your audience if you keep getting the basics wrong?
Please take a look at these definitions.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Addendum: Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
Evolution is all about black magic over time.
“Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena.”
Evolution is not TESTABLE. YOU and your cohorts were not there and the evidence doesn't “substantiate” it.
Evolution DOES fit the definition of a hypothesis:
“Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “
So by scientific definition, evolution is a hypothesis, as I stated.
Odd how you also change the subject when cornered and you still come up short. You need to bone up, on your hobby.
Also do your homework on the link that shows deserts have shells and fossils - I'm stunned that you are not aware of that. That's OLD NEWS.
I have tired of you.
I give up. You are blind by choice, ignorant out of desire. Keep your superstitions. Pray that the ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night do not get you.
That's a laugh! Everything you say about science has errors and you think we should "bone up" on our "hobby"? (Actually osteology is one of my fields. I can tell a lot about a person from their bones.)
Also do your homework on the link that shows deserts have shells and fossils - I'm stunned that you are not aware of that. That's OLD NEWS.
Mountains, deserts, and the like have shells and fossils. Big deal. Science knows how they got there. Apparently you do not.
I have tired of you.
Sorry to hear that.
But that's OK. You just keep on posting nonsense and I'll keep on posting accepted science. We'll let the lurkers decide.
For the lurkers--there is an even longer list of definitions on my FR home page if you are interested in seeing how those terms are used in science.
thank you bookmarked
CONSUMER ALERT! Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship
David Barton's "Christian Nation" Myth Factory Admits Its Products Have Been Defective
More "fake but accurate," eh?
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! —Patrick Henry (MADE UP BY A SERVANT OF THE FATHER OF LIES)
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. —George Washington (ANOTHER MANUFACTURED QUOTE BROUGHT TO YOU BY A SERVANT OF THE FATHER OF LIES)
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. —The Supreme Court in Holy Trinity (ADMITIDLY FALSE QUOTE BY A LIAR WHO CLAIMS TO BE A MAN OF GOD)
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” —James Madison (ANOTHER ADMITIDLY FALSE QUOTE BY A LIAR WHO CLAIMS TO BE A MAN OF GOD)
Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. —Benjamin Franklin (YET ANOTHER LIE)
The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer. —Noah Webster (WHY DOES HE THINK IT IS OK TO LIE?)
There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet. —Noah Webster (MORE LIES FROM A SERVANT OF THE FATHER OF LIES)
The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion. —Abraham Lincoln (IS THERE ANYONE SAFE FROM THIS REVISIONIST LIAR?)
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. —Abraham Lincoln (MADE UP QUOTE BY A CHARLATAN)
I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. —Thomas Jefferson (MORE LIES)
A general dissolution of principles and manners will surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.—Samuel Adams (ANOTHER LIE)
America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.—Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book cited, yet another lie).
I know the Arctic is cold because numerous thermometers have measured the temperature, not because someone told me it's cold. I don't have to go to the moon to know it's gravity is 1/6 that of earth. The fact that someone famous says it's gravity is less isn't what convinces me, it's my knowledge of physics.
Not so at all. For example, the sequening of human and other species' DNA over the past decade has added enormous evidence in support of evolution.
“If you have an alternative scientific theory, state it.”
The fact that there is no competing theory to state (and I freely admit that ID and Creationism are not scientific because they cannot be tested) has no bearing on whether or not the TOE is valid.
I don’t understand why people on FR make this assertion. The TOE has to stand or fall on its own, regardless of whether there is a competing theory to investigate or not.
“It’s been shown that mitochondria (the parts of the cell that process energy) had their origin in cyanobacteria.”
You mean it’s been observed in the lab under controlled conditions?
Fhe ToE is extraordinarilly well supported by by experiment, observation and has passed the test of predicting future discoveries. It is settled science except for creationists who want to believe an old Babylonian myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.