Research shows brain atrophy in born again's:

Originally posted by FMF
Battan's straw men caricatures of science are what you should be paying attention to, not Battan himself or Watts himself.

I will in due time, as I already informed you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He may get into areas of science in his book in which he is not an expert.
I don't expect everyone to be perfect or experts in everything. However,
his little article on dating with tree rings is in his line of work and study,
since he has a Phd in plant physiology. I'll post the link again to it. See
what you think.

http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

Again, he takes a single piece of apparently relevant evidence and abuses it to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion. Yes, some tree species do produce more than one growth ring per year, but these species are not used for dendro dating. It is axiomatic that softwood species should not be used for dendrochonological purposes for several reasons including but not limited to multiple seasonal growth rings. There are, in addition, some hardwood species which are also unsuitable. It is, however, easily demonstrable that temperate hardwood species such as oak which are used to this end produce a single easily discernible ring every year. You'll note in his paper that he doesn't allow for this fact, but rather obfuscates by only referring to growth patterns in the monterey pine, a very fast-growing softwood tree which would not be used for dating in this manner in any case, and erroneously concluding in consequence that the principles of dendrochronology are themselves suspect.

Extended tree-ring sequences do not lend themselves to universal corroboration and calibration of C14 dates for reasons that this man doesn't even consider, but as I've tried to explain to you numerous times, dating techniques are rarely if ever used in isolation. There are many different techniques used in the worlds of archaeology and palaeontology, and none of them support your young earth paradigm.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Again, he takes a single piece of apparently relevant evidence and abuses it to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion. Yes, some tree species do produce more than one growth ring per year, but these species are not used for dendro dating. It is axiomatic that softwood species should not be used for dendrochonological purposes for several reasons includ ...[text shortened]... worlds of archaeology and palaeontology, and none of them support your young earth paradigm.

What is the proof? Even this scientist who has a PHD in Plant
Physiology is unaware of it. Why should you, who probably have
a PHD in zilch, know better?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is the proof? Even this scientist who has a PHD in Plant
Physiology is unaware of it. Why should you, who probably have
a PHD in zilch, know better?

I claimed no proof. Allow me to reiterate:

There are many different [dating] techniques used in the worlds of archaeology and palaeontology, and none of them support your young earth paradigm.

Incidentally, what makes you think I don't have a doctorate?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I claimed no proof. Allow me to reiterate:

[b]There are many different [dating] techniques used in the worlds of archaeology and palaeontology, and none of them support your young earth paradigm.

Incidentally, what makes you think I don't have a doctorate?[/b]

Yes, there are many different dating techniques; but the evolutionists use
them all wrong as Dr. Battan explained and some of them have supported
a young earth. I don't remember saying you did not have a doctorate,
but that you probably had a PHD in Zilch, which would have nothing to do
with the present subject matter. So my opinion is worth just as much as
yours.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, there are many different dating techniques; but the evolutionists use
them all wrong as Dr. Battan explained and some of them have supported
a young earth. I don't remember saying you did not have a doctorate,
but that you probably had a PHD in Zilch, which would have nothing to do
with the present subject matter. So my opinion is worth just as much as
yours.

So your contention is that the experts in these fields are using these techniques incorrectly, and you base this on a creationist publication edited by a plant physiologist? Well, each to their own.

I don't follow the rest of your post. It seems a bit confused.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So your contention is that the experts in these fields are using these techniques incorrectly, and you base this on a creationist publication edited by a plant physiologist? Well, each to their own.

I don't follow the rest of your post. It seems a bit confused.

I have heard similiar charges of dating abuse to conform to the evolutionary
viewpoint for at least twenty years, with any dating indicating a young earth
being discarded as an error of some type. So what he says on that is not
really new to me. It just provides more evidence. As far as your PHD goes,
I don't recall you even claiming to have a doctorate in anything, much less
anything that would relate to what we are discussing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have heard similiar charges of dating abuse to conform to the evolutionary
viewpoint for at least twenty years, with any dating indicating a young earth
being discarded as an error of some type.

If that is so, why doesn't Battan simply use carbon dating to prove that the world is only a few thousand years old? No need to cite measurements that don't exist, because of alleged "abuse", why doesn't he just recreate some of these "discarded" measurements that "indicate a young earth"?

Originally posted by FMF
If that is so, why doesn't Battan simply use carbon dating to prove that the world is only a few thousand years old? No need to cite measurements that don't exist, because of alleged "abuse", why doesn't he just recreate some of these "discarded" measurements that "indicate a young earth"?

That is a good point. Maybe someone will make that effort.
But I doubt if that would change your mind or anyone that
depends on evolution as their belief system.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is a good point. Maybe someone will make that effort.

Well there is a reason why they don't "make that effort" and instead cite non-existent "indications".

Originally posted by FMF
Well there is a reason why they don't "make that effort" and instead cite non-existent "indications".

You might be interested in these dating methods that are supposed
to indicate a young earth.

http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.htm#15.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You might be interested in these dating methods that are supposed
to indicate a young earth.

http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.htm#15.

What do you know about icecap data? Did you know they have positively dated ice core readings to 300,000 years ago? This is a natural phenomenon and procuces one layer per year just like tree rings but going back continuously for hundreds of thousand of years. They can track the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time and the temperature is still readable so they can read what happened during past ice ages. Like 120,000 years ago the temps went up by 7 degrees and there was a major loss of ice in Greenland back then. It could happen again the same way and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is way higher than that of 120,000 years ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you know about icecap data? Did you know they have positively dated ice core readings to 300,000 years ago? This is a natural phenomenon and procuces one layer per year just like tree rings but going back continuously for hundreds of thousand of years. They can track the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time and the temperature is still readab ...[text shortened]... e same way and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is way higher than that of 120,000 years ago.

Not only that, but with global warming and the melting of the icecaps, this record of history may soon be gone as well.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you know about icecap data? Did you know they have positively dated ice core readings to 300,000 years ago? This is a natural phenomenon and procuces one layer per year just like tree rings but going back continuously for hundreds of thousand of years. They can track the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time and the temperature is still readab ...[text shortened]... e same way and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is way higher than that of 120,000 years ago.

They are obviously wrong again, since the earth was not even created
300,000 years ago and there could not possibly be any ice. Just put
your trust in Jesus and you will not have to worry about that nonsense.
😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You might be interested in these dating methods that are supposed
to indicate a young earth.

http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.htm#15.

Even I can find better creationist websites than that one! Come on RJ, are you even trying? A shaved chimp could knock down those 'arguments'.