bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  109

  Happy at Bethel. Can't believe what I'm seeing.

  by Pubsinger in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  apologies if this has already been posted but i am speechless.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnbmyudrwgs&x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260#t=72.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  The takedowns must be because of the music. I think the more likely explanation is xjw filing complaints.
• 
  12

  The intcal13 dataset: The best evidence I know of for C14 dating.

  by bohm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the c14/c12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked.

  the way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of c14.

  popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  konceptual99: Yah i get the "noahs flood f#cked up c14" would be the standard response, but i wonder if anyone has tried asking if noahs flood is really supposed to have mucked up dendrochronology, varves, corals and speleothems and this is just counting the standard C14 callibrations. Seems like it would sound far fetched to even a true believer. 
• 
  19

  Can't post pictures

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. forum
  2. tech-support

  not able to do so... the posting progress is just stuck and nothing happens.

  first i thought may be the pics were too big.

  re sized them and still nothing... any ideas?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Simon: I am having problems posting some images in a reasonable resolution on this thread: 

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/84190001/intcal13-dataset-best-evidence-know-c14-dating

  The images are only about 50kb, but the text is very fuzzy. I just checked and the native images look okay. I have tried to upload them on the forum and to an external site and you can see both results on the thread. I wonder if this is me doing something wrong or if it is fixable
• 
  12

  The intcal13 dataset: The best evidence I know of for C14 dating.

  by bohm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the c14/c12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked.

  the way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of c14.

  popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  gh-res versions as PNG (see above for PDF):

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  
  
• 
  72

  Last nights meeting...

  by DATA-DOG in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know dubs are delusional.

  i know dubs don't reason well.

  i know dubs are a bit off, like many groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  How about the recent long movie about the dad who saved his family from the world by trusting jehovah? It was pretty thick with cliches
• 
  12

  The intcal13 dataset: The best evidence I know of for C14 dating.

  by bohm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the c14/c12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked.

  the way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of c14.

  popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Tried the cd and this is how the wt responds to the topic:

  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=varve&p=par

  Anyone tried this argument irl?
• 
  12

  The intcal13 dataset: The best evidence I know of for C14 dating.

  by bohm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the c14/c12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked.

  the way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of c14.

  popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Hm. It appears the forum re-scale the pictures. here are high-resolution versions:

  http://www.filedropper.com/myfig1

  http://www.filedropper.com/myfig2
  
• 
  12

  The intcal13 dataset: The best evidence I know of for C14 dating.

  by bohm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the c14/c12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked.

  the way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of c14.

  popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Carbon 14 dating is often dismissed as relying on the assumption the C14/C12 ratio in the past has been comparable to the present, however what is rarely acknowledged is this assumption can be checked. 

  The way the assumption is checked is by finding a system which admits dating independent of C14. Popular choices are dendrochronology, where tree-rings are counted and by matching variation in tree-ring width across trees it is possible to build a chronology stretching back 12000 years, or varvas, where yearly variations in sediment deposits in lakes admit chronologies to be build stretching back tens of thousands of years. By C-14 dating either the tree in a tree-ring chronology, or microfossils of plant remains in a varva chronology it is then possible to check if the C14-date match the estimated calendar date.

  I was curious how close this match was and what the actual data looked like. I therefore went to http://intcal.qub.ac.uk/intcal13/ and downloaded the full intcal13 dataset which i have plotted in the figure below. Each point represents a specific sample which is dated using an external method (the x-axis) and by C14 (y-axis), and the different colors represents 23 different datasets roughly corresponding to multiple dendrochronological datasets from multiple regions and involving multiple tree species, the famous lake Suigetsu varva chronology (the green dots from dataset 9 which appear almost like a solid line!), various coral chronologies and chronologies from speleothems (cave stones). 

  

  If the WT interpretation of genesis is true, all C14 dates must refer to ages less than 6000 years, and properly less than 5300 years reflecting noahs ark. The question is now why all these systems agree with the C14 date; the only explanation is they, though being composed of vastly different processes,  for some reason experienced an explosive growth at just the same rate as C14 was being created in the atmosphere, however why all these systems should behave the same way is clearly a mystery. 

  Here is a close-up for the past 10000 years. Can anyone spot the effect of noahs ark?

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  
  
• 
  69

  Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Prologos: I think so as well. It is very strange to think about primitive life as something between a soup full of chemical reactions and something that could be said to transmit information.  

  Viviane: Oh no! I feel so terrible that you leave me alone; I was just getting so happified with the abuse. But don't worry, if I place a paste-it lap at the bottom of the screen which says "Everything you ever wrote is misrepresentations and lies. Take a basic science class fool" and I imagine a steamed lobster, it is as if you are still there lol.  
• 
  18

  Science increasingly makes the case for god

  by DesirousOfChange in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  recently got this email from a long-time jw friend who is still "in".thoughts on a tactful response?thanks,doc

  science increasingly makes the case for god.

  the odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer.. intelligent design, anyone?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Actually I don't like the LK Essay. The main objections to the OP seems to be on my single reading:

  (1) the number of parameters for intelligent life may be correlated such that the possibility of getting a jackpot-planet is higher than the product of the marginal probabilities: "The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. "

  (2) life may originate under very different circumstances: "And we now understand that, even in our solar system, there are a host of possible sites where life might have evolved that were long considered unlikely. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn may have vast oceans of liquid water, underneath ice covers, which are heated by gravitational tidal friction associated with their giant hosts. "

  The problem with (2) is that the argument in the article is that the probability that life originates on a planet depend on a number of factors, period. So to say that life may originate under other circumstances is thus simply ignoring the claim. To circumvent the argument Krauss should demonstrate that the quotes used in the article relates to earth-like life, or that the claim itself is wrong because it makes false assumptions. I don't see how this is done without addressing the claim.

  Regarding (1), it may be true the parameters are correlated, or they may not be correlated. If they are correlated, they may be correlated in a favorable way or an unfavorable way. For krauss to say they may be correlated in a favorable way is thus to make two assumptions which he does not support and to my mind requires evidence: (a) that the parameters are correlated (b) that they are correlated in a way that place more (and not less) probabilistic mass on earth-like planets.

  Now, I don't buy the argument in the article one bit and the first thing i would look at was where the 200 parameters come from and what sort of range they have, however I don't think Krauss really does that asides offering his informed opinion.