Share good examples of Christian Science

1rreducibly Complex said:

What claims need to be "supported".

Click to expand...

Did you not recently start a thread with this laughable claim:

"The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree."

You ran from that thread too. And your other threads in this forum. Do you think you are 'sharing content' that nobody has seen and laughed at before?

1rreducibly Complex said:

The way real science works is. Nikola Tesla waging a small war against Thomas Edison to prove his theory of AC electricity being best suited for residential use. Einstein having years of struggles to prove some of his theories correct to the doubters and naysayers.

There was no competition and no struggle present with evolutionary theory being adopted. There was never an open discussion or debate between creationism and evolution that was credible or objective. Nor any real attempt made to vet competing theories like creationism or evolution for integrity.

Evolutionary theory was simply pushed through by deep pockets, big money and powerful political connections.

Evolution is political science. Funded and endorsed by ruling elites. Who crammed it down the throats of the entire world.

It is not and never will be legitimate science.

Click to expand...

There are multi-trillion dollar industries (e.g. medicine, agriculture) that have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible. If evolution were as flawed as creationists claim it is, the first place you would be hearing about it would be those industries.

Yet when you look at the reality of things, it turns out evolutionary biology has real world applications thereof.

The notion there is some global cabal to prop up the theory of evolution is just a creationist fantasy, concocted to avoid the uncomfortable truth: that evolution is legitimate science and that it's not going anywhere for that reason alone.

I never understood why naysayers of creationism waste so much time and energy posting on forums.

Click to expand...

Boredom, mostly.

When they could take 5 minutes to visit youtube or a search engine to type: "scientific evidence for creationism". Which would lay most of their misconceptions to rest.

Click to expand...

I've consumed more creationist material than most creationists. Creationism has its basis in theology and requires miracles to function.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many versions of creationism out there? YEC and OEC make dramatically different claims about the nature of the universe. Why haven't creationists managed to settle on who is correct?

pitabread said:

Dating methods are cross-correlated via multiple methods not just dendrochronology.

For example, here is a correlation between multiple methods including both non-radiometric (varve counts and dendrochronology) and radiometric (C-14 dating). If the years were off as much as YECs need them to be, this correlation shouldn't exist.

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

Click to expand...

varves are formed by weather and climate changes, the same exact determining factor in dendrochronology. So of course they will coincide with each other. Neither lake varves nor tree rings are formed by 365 day intervals. What they have is a record of weather and/or climate changes not a record of years.

BNR32FAN said:

varves are formed by weather and climate changes,

Click to expand...

Varves are formed by seasonal variation and freeze/thaw cycles related to sediment deposition, not "weather and climate changes".

So of course they will coincide with each other. Neither lake varves nor tree rings are formed by 365 day intervals. What they have is a record of weather and/or climate changes not a record of years.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. Why would tree rings and varves be affected in exactly the same way? The former is related to biological growth, the latter is related to sediment deposits. If not for seasonal variation, why these would otherwise be correlated? What is the mechanism which would cause that?

Plus, if you take another look at the chat posted, there are actually two sets of varves from lakes on the opposite sides of the planet. Unless you're trying to suggest that both lakes are affected by exactly the same conditions (how?), it doesn't make any sense to see the correlation we do unless they are measuring the thing they are measuring: annual sediment deposition.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Ah, that's a bearing...

"The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

Click to expand...

I wasn’t aware of that, typically when we refer to a bearing today it’s in reference to balls or round pins used to reduce friction in rotating parts. I see your point but it’s still a very primitive concept.

sjastro said:

Where did you get this fanciful number from?
At least get your facts straight, human occupation of the Australian continent began around 60,000 years ago.
Even this number is under threat with the latest but contestable evidence of occupation being at least 120,000 years.
Humans might have lived at this coastal site 120,000 years ago — the trick lies in proving it
If true the consequences are profound as humans had developed the technology of watercraft to reach Australia from such a remote period.

Click to expand...

Well that’s another part of the problem is when you ask how long have humans been on the earth you get a lot of vastly different answers depending on who your asking ranging from 60,000 years up to 800,000 years.

BNR32FAN said:

The difference between flat earth and scientific dating methods is there are absolutely zero assumptions about the earth being a sphere. Carbon dating hangs on the principle that C14 has been constant in the atmosphere which we can’t prove and it’s known that the levels have been increasing, dendrochronology hangs on the principal that the trees haven’t encountered multiple droughts, freezes, and changes in nutrients having an affect of the formation of tree rings, and thermoluminescents dating completely ignores the theory that the earth has been subjected to solar storms on the average of once a century. It hangs on the principal that gamma exposure has been constant which many scientists seem to believe it hasn’t.

Click to expand...

So we are going to skip the whole part where we consider your interpretation might be wrong and jump straight to arguing if science is correct? Ok.


So are all the scientists stupid or is it a giant conspiracy? What is your explanation for why multiple scientific disciplines keep coming up with answers that show an old universe?

BNR32FAN said:

Carbon dating hangs on the principle that C14 has been constant in the atmosphere which we can’t prove and it’s known that the levels have been increasing,

Click to expand...

It does not.

It depends on the principle that C-14's decay constant is unchanging (the rate of decay). This is turn depends on the physical constants being actually constant, which we know they are over at least billion year time scales to a high degree.

Even if we assume the atmospheric levels are constant we make errors like thinking a 3700 year old textile is only 3400 years old or that a 13000 year old bit of charcoal is 11000 years old (or vice versa, I don't know which way this thing trends systematically). Even without calibration, we would not think that a C14-tested bit of charcoal from 783 AD was 11000 years old. That's just not the issue.

Calibrating with other ways to get dates that have narrow instrumental errors to tell between the textile made in 1700 +/- 30 BC rather than the incorrect 1400 +/- 30 BC.

pitabread said:

Varves are formed by seasonal variation

Click to expand...

Seasons are irrelevant to the formulation of varves since seasons take place once every 3 months varve lines on the other hand can be formed several times a year or less than once per year. That’s why when you look at a varve sample the lines are not always uniform because they’re not formed by time they’re formed by sediment disturbance, weather, and climate. Sometimes you’ll have layers 5 or 6 times thicker than others. They’re typically never perfectly uniform.

BNR32FAN said:

Seasons are irrelevant to the formulation of varves since seasons take place once every 3 months varve lines on the other hand can be formed several times a year or less than once per year.

Click to expand...

When I say "seasonal", I am talking about annual cycles, not literal spring, summer, etc.

That’s why when you look at a varve sample the lines are not always uniform because they’re not formed by time they’re formed by sediment disturbance, weather, and climate. Sometimes you’ll have layers 5 or 6 times thicker than others. They’re typically never perfectly uniform.

Click to expand...

The varve counts themselves aren't strictly about thickness, but about the type of deposition that occurs during different of the year (again based on freeze/thaw cycles) and the formation of alternating layers.

Which still doesn't explain why it would correlate with dendrochronology if it's not based on annual cycles.

So please explain what the mechanisms of both tree ring formation and varve formation that would lead them to otherwise be correlated if we're not dealing with annual cycles. How would something like disturbing sediment in a lakebed affect tree rings?

Belk said:

So we are going to skip the whole part where we consider your interpretation might be wrong and jump straight to arguing if science is correct? Ok.

Click to expand...

No not skipping it, I’ve already explained my position that six days is pretty hard to interpret as anything else. You’ve just failed to produce anything refuting that to promote any further discussion on it. You compared the flat earth debate with the young earth debate as if the evidence that the earth is ancient is as solid as the earth being a sphere and I explained exactly why it’s not. When we look at the earth from space we don’t have to rely on assumptions the way carbon dating, dendrochronolygy and thermoluminescence dating do. All we have to do is take one look at we it’s been established as undeniable fact that the earth is not flat, it is a sphere. Unlike the unseen conditions that must be true in order for the dating methods to be fact. That’s why they’re not facts, they’re theories.

BNR32FAN said:

Well that’s another part of the problem is when you ask how long have humans been on the earth you get a lot of vastly different answers depending on who your asking ranging from 60,000 years up to 800,000 years.

Click to expand...

This is really a matter of what you consider to be modern humans including speech, higher reasoning, creative thought, etc. and when these arose. Most of these features are hard to track in the archeological or fossil record.

The lower age, 60000 years, is driven by the people of Australia who have the longest separation from the rest of humanity at 50-60,000 years. Since these peoples (Australians and non-Australians) both have the same basic, fundamental human characteristics the split must have occurred after those features developed. Therefore, our species is at least 60,000 years old.

The other end of the range is roughly the separation point between the Africans and the ancestors of the Eurasian Neanderthal and Denisovan populations. When Africans again left for Eurasia, there were successful matings that left small amounts of Neanderthal DNA in their Eurasian descendants. (There is, as I recall, some evidence that those Neanderthal/African hybrids may not have been fully fertile, indicating that Neanderthals and Africans were separate, but closely related, species. The debate continues...)

If Neanderthals are human, then humans have existed for nearly a million years. What we do know is that when their ancestors left Africa, our common ancestors were cooking food with fire and crafting cutting and scraping tools by chipping rocks. Could they make all of the sounds of our languages? could the develop the rich languages we have? Could they understand the inner workings of others thoughts as well as we do? I don't know. What ever non-appearance differences there were, they apparently did not inhibit attempts to mate.

pitabread said:

When I say "seasonal", I am talking about annual cycles, not literal spring, summer, etc.

Click to expand...

But that’s the error people keep making when they keep claiming that it’s measurements of time that are the determining factor. Layers aren’t formed by time they’re formed by weather and climate changes. It’s not annual cycles that determine the lines, because weather and climate can vary during annual cycles. You might have multiple cold spells in one year or you might have multiple heat waves in one year. These will influence the lines that are formed. It’s these unseen variables that are the reason these dates are theories and can’t be concluded as fact.

BNR32FAN said:

But that’s the error people keep making when they keep claiming that it’s measurements of time that are the determining factor. Layers aren’t formed by time they’re formed by weather and climate changes. It’s not annual cycles that determine the lines, because weather and climate can vary during annual cycles. You might have multiple cold spells in one year or you might have multiple heat waves in one year. These will influence the lines that are formed. It’s these unseen variables that are the reason these dates are theories and can’t be concluded as fact.

Click to expand...

You're repeating this over and over, but you're failing to explain exactly how this would work with respect to both dendrochronology and varve formation.

What is the specific mechanism that would cause both varves to form and tree rings to form with correlation if we're not talking about annual cycles?

Simply repeating "weather and climate changes" isn't answering the question. What are the specifics of how that works?

Belk said:

So are all the scientists stupid or is it a giant conspiracy?

Click to expand...

All scientists don’t believe in an ancient earth. See now your just ignoring facts.

Hans Blaster said:

It does not.

It depends on the principle that C-14's decay constant is unchanging (the rate of decay). This is turn depends on the physical constants being actually constant, which we know they are over at least billion year time scales to a high degree.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect because you have to know how much C14 was present when the life form was alive to be able to determine the half value. We don’t even know if the increase in C14 in the last 80 years has stayed constant before that. Magnetic fields are constantly shifting and changing directly affecting the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Huge forest fires and solar storms are two other major contenders in the fluctuation of C14. That’s why carbon dating is based on the principles that IF these conditions have stayed constant then this material is x amount of years old. The prediction is contingent upon the data being consistent. This goes for every single dating method out there.

Hans Blaster said:

Even if we assume the atmospheric levels are constant we make errors like thinking a 3700 year old textile is only 3400 years old or that a 13000 year old bit of charcoal is 11000 years old (or vice versa, I don't know which way this thing trends systematically). Even without calibration, we would not think that a C14-tested bit of charcoal from 783 AD was 11000 years old. That's just not the issue.

Click to expand...

There are tons of examples of carbon dating being off by 50% or more. Surely you’ve seen these examples? If not you haven’t looked at all because they’re literally thousands of them.

pitabread said:

The varve counts themselves aren't strictly about thickness, but about the type of deposition that occurs during different of the year (again based on freeze/thaw cycles) and the formation of alternating layers.

Click to expand...

That’s exactly my point because you can have several freeze/thaw cycles in one year. We have several per year here in America every year. America doesn’t stay frozen all winter. It doesn’t even stay cold all winter in many places.

BNR32FAN said:

That’s exactly my point because you can have several freeze/thaw cycles in one year. We have several per year here in America every year. America doesn’t stay frozen all winter. It doesn’t even stay cold all winter in many places.

Click to expand...

You're still not explaining the mechanism.

What is the specific mechanism that would result in correlated tree rings and varve counts forming, if not annually? How would that work specifically?

In fact, let's just start with simpler questions: what makes up the layers in varves? And what causes tree ring formation in trees?

Please explain the mechanisms.

1rreducibly Complex said:

How are broad and comprehensive campaigns for societal trends like open borders, vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns pushed globally. With a coordinated and organized effort behind them.

Do people think they came up with these ideas on their own? Hahaha.

Basic history says: shadowy mysterious ruling elites have always been behind the majority of societal trends. You could look at Pythagoras being the leader of a secret society of ruling elites who pushed widespread cultural and political agendas 2,000+ years ago as a historical example.

Unfortunately you will probably never learn enough basic history to ever know that Pythagoras' example is the norm rather than the exception.

Click to expand...

And again: I'm Genghis Khan.