Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Reptiles to Man? That is just funny, would have loved to see the slide. That must fit right in with the chimp human divergence some 20 million years ago Oppps that will make common descent unworkable.
Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.
Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.
You offer evidence to support your theory that the bible is God's word by saying that the springs of the sea referred to can only mean the deep vents that weren't known about at the time. It is an interesting idea, and would fit in with your theory if we can be sure of 2 things: 1) the author specifically meant deep sea vents, and 2) the idea that the sea was supplied with water from beneath was not around at the time. The first point is uncertain, but I'll go with it. The second point is rather spoiled by dad from this very forum banging on about Noah's worldwide flood being supplied by water from underground and, if I'm not mistaken, quoting the Bible to prove it. So on the one hand you have a possible mention of deep sea vents, on the other indications that the author's grasp of hydrogeology was distictly shaky. On balance it is inconclusive.
But all this, interesting as it is, doesn't get round the problem of your theory of divine authorship being rather spoilt merely by opening the Bible and reading the nonsense in Genesis. As you know, evidence can't prove a theory, it can only support it, but evidence can disprove a theory. Your theory is gone before you've even started. But you did at least try, which was more than I expected, and provided a diverting few minutes.
I have said, it is not a strong evidence, or not even an evidence to you because you do not understand enough.
You do not understand the meaning on the "spring of the sea" enough. And you do not understand theology enough. And, I should sincerely say, you nearly do not have any understanding on the Genesis 1. You don't even understand the first three words of the first sentence: "In the beginning ...". I spent nearly half an hour on these three words in my Sunday School class. And just today, I used more than an hour to talk to one of my colleague about the significance of these three words. They are extremely meaningful. You do not understand it, so you missed one of the most significant evidence of God.
Yes, I say: the first three words in the first verse of the first chapter in the first Book of the Bible, illustrate an evidence of God. How could you start to appreciate it? At least, you need to know more about science.
Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.
As you know, evidence can't prove a theory, it can only support it, but evidence can disprove a theory. Your theory is gone before you've even started.
I used to think that too. I was wrong.
"CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence
or perspectives."
Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science
Your colleague must be a very patient person.
What makes you think I am even qualified to discuss condensed matter physics and a translated Chinese paper no less?
I'm afraid you are applying the wrong statistical method. What they are doing has nothing to do with 2 sigma (2 standard deviations). The analysis they are doing has two variables which calls for a "least squares" regression. The regression line on the graphs is showing the amount of variation based on two variables. What they don't show is is the "r" value which would address the reliability of their results. The goal for scientific data is to achieve a 95% confidence level or better. Nevertheless, I think the significant thing to take from the study in context as applied to decay rates is that they only came up with a variation of 0.8% and that is what they are calling a "large" variation. Also, It is important to grasp the reality that none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment.Outside of a few layman comments I have.
It appears to me that the embedding of 7Be into Gold and Palladium was an attempt to alter the Quantum tunneling of the electron capture for 7Be. I am a little unsettled by the deviation of error for decay counts; I would hardly think they reached the 2 sigma.. I believe that there results could reflect a deviation of decay rates judging from figure #2 (the slopes indicate deviation).
I really don't understand why you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding. None of the sources you provided said anything about dating ice cores to 15 million years. The million year plus data is derived for marine sediment cores. Marine sediments taken from the Antarctic continental shelves reveal many unmistakable markers, some of which include, sea surface temperature, sea level, ice mass and extent. The "vast gulf" you keep aluding to does not exist.I think you had my final comments on ice core dating unless you would really like to explain why the vast gulf of time exists between ice cores and accepted dates for Antarctica ice? 400k years verses 15 million years.
[/quote]I really don't understand why you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding. None of the sources you provided said anything about dating ice cores to 15 million years. The million year plus data is derived for marine sediment cores. Marine sediments taken from the Antarctic continental shelves reveal many unmistakable markers, some of which include, sea surface temperature, sea level, ice mass and extent. The "vast gulf" you keep aluding to does not exist.
From Rick I'm afraid you are applying the wrong statistical method. What they are doing has nothing to do with 2 sigma (2 standard deviations). The analysis they are doing has two variables which calls for a "least squares" regression. The regression line on the graphs is showing the amount of variation based on two variables. What they don't show is is the "r" value which would address the reliability of their results. The goal for scientific data is to achieve a 95% confidence level or better. Nevertheless, I think the significant thing to take from the study in context as applied to decay rates is that they only came up with a variation of 0.8% and that is what they are calling a "large" variation. Also, It is important to grasp the reality that none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment.
I think that you are mixing up confidence levels (basic data uncertainty) with the linear least of squares calculation once points have been resolved with an accompanying deviation. My comment was on the large uncertainty value(confidence level) of the basic data set. So a sigma level (confidence level) of say two would correspond to a confidence interval of 95.4%. Really not so good in current research of this type.
Citation please.About the none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment Comment. Actually the dating using a radio isotope in some type of substrate is not even considered these days.
It doesn't, and even if it did it still puts the age of the Earth considerably older than 6,000 years.If say Uranium is affected by a .8% variation in decay rate it would be very significant.
Key phrase, "current icy period". It's not the first.The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years ago in the Miocene epoch.
Key word, "believed". If they had dated it a date would be given. Evidence based on current understanding thus far points to that, but they will have to retreive a core sample yeilding such a date to use the word, "is". However, don't forget that glaciation there has already been verified there via marine sediment cores.The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are believed to be 15 million years old.
So Rick why arent the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?
So Rick why arent the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?
The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years
ago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are
believed to be 15 million years old.
Because ice melts under the pressure of a 2.2 miles thick ice sheet. That's why that lake of liquid water is down there, look at your own figure.
Just to humor you… I have a question.
How much pressure is the ice at that depth under? Is it 100,000 to 400,000 atmospheres?
For pressures between 100,000 and 400,000 atmospheres, the team, led by Eric Schwegler, found that ice melts as a molecular solid (similar to how ice melts in a cold drink).
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-09-04.html
"So the water at its pressure of 300 atmospheres will be sampled. But when we pull the probe up and the flasks hit the cold air in the borehole, the water will try to freeze; the pressure then increases to around 2,700 atmospheres, and that's greater than anything experienced in ocean engineering."
BBC News - Antarctic lake mission targets life and climate signs
There are a lot of human evolution assumptions resting on that 15 million year old date. So you favor the ice core dating over the long accepted dating upholding evolution dogma? You know you can make so much from basic assumptions that rest on vast speculation. I prefer a written record over speculation every time dont you? I believe the dates are off by about (400k-4.3k) 395.7k by the way the secular estimate is off by a lot more (15m-400k) 14.6m.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?