#190186 - 07/27/10 08:09 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: shakey56]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
Since you obviously don't have a clue, here's a definition: re·li·a·ble (r-l-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car.
2. Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials.
Your link has no documentation or evidence of scientific study to support its contentions.
Where's your "evidence". I don't think you have any. You are just spouting off what you've been conditioned to believe without having one shred of proof more than someone taught you these things.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190189 - 07/27/10 08:19 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: shakey56]
|
shakey56
Member
Registered: 03/31/04
Posts: 1889
Loc: where the wild roadrunners roa...
|
Show me a single source that isn't Christian based agreeing with the drivel you've posted.
Why is it you mental midgets always accuse rational thinkers of being as gullible as you obviously are? You are the one who has been conditioned.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190190 - 07/27/10 08:23 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: shakey56]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
Shakey, you've got no proof beyond the beliefs that your brain washed mind holds to be true.
Their are obviously major problems with the carbon dating method. Deal with it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190191 - 07/27/10 08:29 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ronniechoate34]
|
shakey56
Member
Registered: 03/31/04
Posts: 1889
Loc: where the wild roadrunners roa...
|
lmao....hello pot. The major problems are with fundie fools like you. Once again, just show a single source that isn't Christian based to support your claims.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190192 - 07/27/10 08:33 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: shakey56]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
lmao....hello pot. The major problems are with fundie fools like you. Once again, just show a single source that isn't Christian based to support your claims.
I don't see a recorded history any older than 4000 bc. It seems as if there are fools who believe mankind is older than that without having any proof at all.
Edited by ronniechoate34 (07/27/10 08:33 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190193 - 07/27/10 08:36 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ronniechoate34]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
Ronnie, there have been variations in the past, but these are very well known and documented so that results of C14 dating takes them into account. C14 samples have been cross-referenced with tree-ring samples, for example, and the results have been shown to be quite accurate.
If a sample is older than about 30,000 years then other methods of dating are used that use the concept of geological strata and various other radioactive breakdowns. Here's an excellent article on the dating of rocks and fossil from a scientific source:
http://scienceandevolution.blogspot.com/2007/07/accuracy-of-fossils-and-dating-methods.html
Edited by ghoti (07/27/10 09:19 AM)
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190194 - 07/27/10 08:53 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ghoti]
|
shakey56
Member
Registered: 03/31/04
Posts: 1889
Loc: where the wild roadrunners roa...
|
I'm reminded of a poem.
NEVER ARGUE WITH A FOOL
It is best not to argue,
But if you do at all,
Never do so with a fool.
A fool can defeat all.
He does not care for the facts.
He does not know debate.
He’s a stranger to reason.
Logic he can negate.
In the end the fool will win,
His logic is so strong!
Decides what he does not like
And then it must be wrong!
It’s better to keep quiet
When challenged by a fool.
Else, to prove his own wisdom,
He will make you a tool.
It is hence my policy
To not respond to those
Who ask questions not to learn
But to be bellicose.
TY to Dr. Gupta
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190195 - 07/27/10 08:54 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ghoti]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
One basic concept that creationists have never been able to challenge is geologic stratification. When fossil beds are excavated, the fossils found near the surface are those of more complex and advanced organisms while the fossils become simpler and less advanced as they dig deeper.
How could this possibly have happened if the fossils were all deposited over a very small time frame, especially since the fossils are embedded mostly in solid rock? A process like Noah's flood could never have sorted out the fossils and put them down in these layers all over the world.
The dating methods also confirm that the different strata do indeed come from very different time frames.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating2.html
Edited by ghoti (07/27/10 09:19 AM)
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190196 - 07/27/10 09:04 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ghoti]
|
shakey56
Member
Registered: 03/31/04
Posts: 1889
Loc: where the wild roadrunners roa...
|
They have never really been able to challenge any scientific concept effectively as far as I have seen.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190198 - 07/27/10 09:14 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: shakey56]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
Advocates of the Carbon dating method have turned to "Dendrochronology" (a.k.a. tree-ring dating) to calibrate their timescale (that is, to adjust it to compensate for the C-12 to C-14 ratio fluctuations). By carbon dating a piece of wood which has also been dated by counting its annual tree-rings, scientists can create a table by which they can convert the questionable Carbon-14 years into true calendar years. This is how it works: scientists begin with a living tree or dead wood specimen which can be accurately dated by some reliable means. Then they look for pieces of dead wood which are older than the specimen which they started with and whose tree-ring patterns match up with and overlap those of the first specimen (tree-rings can vary greatly in width due to environmental factors and thus produce a pattern by which we can match specimens which grew in the same environment). Scientists then look for more pieces of dead wood to match and overlap the second specimen and on and on. And finally, they count all of the tree-rings, using the matching patterns to connect all the pieces, and they determine the age of the oldest piece of wood. This is called a "long chronology." By dating the oldest piece of wood using the Carbon dating method and comparing the two dates, scientists can make the necessary adjustments to their calculations.
Unfortunately, this method of calibrating Carbon dating by using tree-ring dating is itself flawed. Dr Walt Brown explains, "…links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes 'missing' rings are added.1 …Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data so others can do these statistical tests" (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 246; emphasis in the original). This refusal to submit their work to close scrutiny raises a reasonable concern, especially in light of the apparent circular reasoning employed by the researchers. "Wood specimens considered for 'long chronologies' are first radiocarbon dated. If the date is old enough (perhaps by an erroneous reading), tree-ring specialists look at ring thicknesses for a way to extend the 'long chronology'. This chronology is then used to assure the public that radiocarbon dating has been calibrated by a continuous sequence of tree rings. [This practice is also described by Henry N. Michael and Elizabeth K. Ralph, "Quickee" 14C Dates, Radiocarbon, Vol. 23 No. 1, 1981, pp. 165-166]." (Brown, ibid, p. 246; See also Gerald E. Aardsma, "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," Impact, No. 189, March 1989.)
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190202 - 07/27/10 09:26 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ronniechoate34]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
Yes, people can, by human error, miscount the tree rings. That's easily checked by having the same sample counted by several people rather than just one. I've often counted tree rings myself, and it's very simple and straightforward.
Any errors in the methods only amount to a few percent one way or the other anyway. That's why radiometric dates are shown as a narrow range of possibilities rather than a single precise date.
Just because the markings on rulers are an imprecise way to measure lengths doesn't invalidate the concept of length measurement, ya know.
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190204 - 07/27/10 09:34 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ghoti]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
These problems encouraged a systematic study in which researchers used the radiocarbon method to date tree rings. Two levels of error emerged. One was a small-scale, short-term variation that can make a given radiocarbon date appear up to four hundred years older or younger than expected (Taylor, 1987, Figure 2.11). Much of this error may be the result of sunspot activity, which in turn affects solar radiation and the production of carbon-14.
A second error comes from an S-shaped, long-term trend (Figure 2). One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period overestimate dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back in time, so that by the fifth millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are too recent by 800 years.
Major trend in the plot of dendrochronology vs. radiocarbon dates
Figure 2. Major trend in the plot of dendrochronology vs. radiocarbon dates. Dates above dashed zero line overestimate tree-ring ages; dates below underestimate tree-ring ages (after Taylor, 1987, Figure 2.8).
No one can explain this major trend adequately on the assumptions of an old Earth or an equilibrium system. Common suggestions include changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, or climatic changes following the last ice age, or a combination of both (Aitken, 1990, p. 67). Despite the unknowns, researchers continue to “calibrate” their radiocarbon dates by dendrochronology.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190206 - 07/27/10 09:54 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ronniechoate34]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
And any anomolies like this, if valid, are easily taken into account by researchers. Ronnie, you can't just disprove something like the age of the earth by attacking one method that has been well-accepted and tested over the years.
Your theory has to explain ALL the observations made by science and "creation science" fails to do that.
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190209 - 07/27/10 11:08 AM
Re: Are there modern-day prophets?
[Re: ghoti]
|
ronniechoate34
Member
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 540
Loc: tennerida
|
One faulty method, one that the scientists speak of as if it's fool proof. And they give out information as if everything they say is as good as gold. They try to leave one with the impression that everything they say is solid to the core facts. But just don't try to look to deeply into it.
However, tree ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data so others can do these statistical tests" (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 246; emphasis in the original). This refusal to submit their work to close scrutiny raises a reasonable concern, especially in light of the apparent circular reasoning employed by the researchers.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
