OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:47) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25) | Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.
http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf
I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002. Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates. Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.
Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.
Enjoy. |
There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14 |
While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.
I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.
See positive evidence. That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position. |
No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column |
But you SAID forastero
| Quote | | Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. |
| Quote | -I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?
|
Your claim is that scientists used the Big Bang not as a metaphor. So I want you to tell me, since you know so much about the early universe... what exploded to cause the explosion that created the universe. It's your claim, you defend it.
My claim is that the Big Bang is a metaphor for the rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity. That is the currently favored hypothesis in all cosmologist circles. You are claiming that this is not correct, so where is your evidence.
Or do you now freely admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about?
As far as Geology, no one has mentioned geologic columns... however it is a consequence of a world wide flood. I'll assume you accept the Flood story of the Judeo-Christian Bible, feel free to correct me (doing so will deny your God of course, but feel free to deny).
One of the consequences of having flooded the planet with some 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water, washing across the surface of the planet in 40 days... you will have MAJOR erosion. We're talking erosion fit to make Krakatoa look like an old guy with a pair of tweezers.
There MUST be a major discontinuity that covers the entire planet, somewhere in the Geologic record.
Further, all that sediment must land someplace. In less than a year, all that water went away and all the sediment must have gone somewhere. Even the highest peaks would have had a little bit of sediment. Major land basins (like the central American Plains for example) would have had quite a bit of sediment dumped on them. This is simple hydrodynamics.
So, where is it? Somewhere in the Geologic column, there must be a world wide layer of sedimentary material. There are 26 locations on Earth (I gave you a hint of one of them) where we can look and see a complete geologic record from the Precambrian to present. So, where should we look?
It should be easy for someone of your learning to get these locations, examine the rock layers and tell us which one it is.
BTW: We know that we can indeed find layers of rock that show world-wide events. And we can find that layer all over the world in rocks of the appropriate age.
This is that positive evidence for your claims that we're talking about. You can obfuscate all you like, but until you actually present positive supporting evidence for your claims, then your just babbling.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
