Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[Colter]

Tree rings to 11,600 years old validated:

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The carbon-14 dates have been carefully cross-checked with non-radiometric age indicators. For example growth rings in trees, if counted carefully, are a reliable way to determine the age of a tree. Each growth ring only collects carbon from the air and nutrients during the year it is made. To calibrate carbon-14, one can analyze carbon from the center several rings of a tree, and then count the rings inward from the living portion to determine the actual age. This has been done for the "Methuselah of trees", the bristlecone pine trees, which grow very slowly and live up to 6,000 years. Scientists have extended this calibration even further. These trees grow in a very dry region near the California-Nevada border. Dead trees in this dry climate take many thousands

of years to decay. Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. "Floating" records, which are not tied to the present time, exist farther back than this, but their ages are not known with absolute certainty. An effort is presently underway to bridge the gaps so as to have a reliable, continuous record significantly farther back in time. The study of tree rings and the ages they give is called "dendrochronology".

Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age. During the ice age, long-lived trees grew in different areas than they do now.

 

[Abraxos]

So then that should have been 70 whopping ice rings with each ring measuring 3.5 feet thick??

How many miles of ice for 60 million years?

Heaps.

 

[BobRyan]

Heaps.

and 729,000 feet of snow and ice would be ?? 138 miles.

Where do you find 138 mile deep snow and ice??

oh no wait - it is "compressed" --- hmm "the longest ice cores extend to 3 km—so then over 2 miles" -- so then compression at 60/1 ratio ... less compression at the top ... massive compression just a short distance from the top compared to the "2 mile" total.

 

[Colter]

The Greenland ice core project was conducted at the summit 72°35′N 37°38′W / 72.583°N 37.633°W / 72.583; -37.633.

The emergency landing site the lost squadron was way down near the coast where there is much more snow and melting.

 

[4x4toy]

List of oldest rivers by ages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age

Wikipedia = Bwahahaha ..

 

[BobRyan]

List of oldest rivers by ages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age

Age stories - are what evolutionists make up "best" -- so at the wild-guessing-site mentioned above --

"The age of a river is difficult to determine. Generally, the age is estimated based primarily upon the age of any mountains it dissects;"

Now if you want - 'science' instead of the 'wild guess' - you "measure" the sedimentation rate at the river delta and the amount of sediment that has been deposited over time -- rate x time.... That is a "science" that is 'known'. (Even though we know that at the start of the river it's sedimentation rate would have to be larger then after the hydrologic cycle has settled and equalized for a few millennia)

But... ohhh no!! We don't want to talk about 'science' when we can use "wild guessing" if we are an evolutionist.

 

[BobRyan]

• from; http://creationtoday.org/evidence-from-earth/
  
  
• The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions(1,p.157;2,p.27;3,p.20;5,p.23;6,p.42;9,p.25; 10, p. 38; 11, p. 32, 80;12, p.91).
• The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep were broken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly (1, p. 156; 11, p.26).
• Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42; 11, p. 26).
• The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 11, p. 25; 12, 83-84).
• The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 pp 356- 374; 11, p. 31, 79; 12, pp. 88-90).
• Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation (6, p. 38; 12, p.94).
• Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).
• The rock-encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24;5,p.24;6,p.37;7;11,p.26).
• The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7).
• The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution (3, p. 25; 7).
• A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7; 11, p.31; 12, p.90).
• The largest stalactites and flow stone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4,400 years (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7). 25. The Sahara desert is expanding. It is about 4,000 years old. See any earth science textbook (7—Part 1B). 26.
• The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now (7; 9, p.26; 10, p. 37;12, p.85-87). 27.
• Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years (7).

 

[BobRyan]

Tree rings to 11,600 years old validated:

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The carbon-14 dates have been carefully cross-checked with non-radiometric age indicators. For example growth rings in trees, if counted carefully, are a reliable way to determine the age of a tree

Wonderful -- tell us that they counted over 11,600 rings on that tree please.

Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, .

"abrupt" you say?

multiple Hot and cold cycles can be recorded in tree rings per year.

http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines

And the same warm-cycle followed by cold - would have an similar "ring" effect on ice cores.

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line - the truly creative evolutionist can flee from one failed argument to the next - in a never-ending effort to assail the Bible account of the origin of life on earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Y chromosomes millions of years old:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Origin

creative 'age' story-telling is where the evolutionists place all of their faith.

Not in "actual observations in nature"

 

[BobRyan]

Outright confession –

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.
============================

How could a 50 year fraud be accepted as IF it is an "observed sequence in nature" when in fact "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers.

I see.. "lamentable" and "never happened in nature" - but not "junk-science" to true believers -- and your argument is that they are "truth seekers" doing that.

Why hijack real science with junk science? As if "real science" is to blame for all of that "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

Is this a description of junk-science? or real science -- "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."

That is not ME saying that - it is atheist evolutionist scientists themselves!!

You just disparage the facts of scientific research because it conflicts with something you believe.

That is not ME quoted as saying "it never happened in nature" and saying "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. "

That is your own atheist evolutionist scientist -

It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

Thank you for admitting - again - that belief in evolutionism drives toward "downsizing" and "dismissing" the Bible as nothing more than "Hebrews guesswork in Genesis"

HERE there can be no doubt at all - that we are really addressing hard-core details in OP -- in fact in the first two posts.


What can be said about the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

 

[Colter]

• from; http://creationtoday.org/evidence-from-earth/
  
  
• The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions(1,p.157;2,p.27;3,p.20;5,p.23;6,p.42;9,p.25; 10, p. 38; 11, p. 32, 80;12, p.91).
• The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep were broken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly (1, p. 156; 11, p.26).
• Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42; 11, p. 26).
• The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 11, p. 25; 12, 83-84).
• The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 pp 356- 374; 11, p. 31, 79; 12, pp. 88-90).
• Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation (6, p. 38; 12, p.94).
• Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).
• The rock-encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24;5,p.24;6,p.37;7;11,p.26).
• The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7).
• The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution (3, p. 25; 7).
• A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7; 11, p.31; 12, p.90).
• The largest stalactites and flow stone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4,400 years (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7). 25. The Sahara desert is expanding. It is about 4,000 years old. See any earth science textbook (7—Part 1B). 26.
• The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now (7; 9, p.26; 10, p. 37;12, p.85-87). 27.
• Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years (7).

LoL! The YEC guy doesn't read his own cut and paste defence!

"The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep werebroken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly"

Silly man!

 

[Colter]

Bottom line - the truly creative evolutionist can flee from one failed argument to the next - in a never-ending effort to assail the Bible account of the origin of life on earth.

Bob, you are a false accuser.

 

[BobRyan]

LoL! The YEC guy doesn't read his own cut and paste defence!

"The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep werebroken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly"

Silly man!

so then you know the difference between lava and magma right?

and you know the science of "current rate" x time = volume .... right?

And you understand that moving the continents around and causing world wide flood with the fountains of the deep opened up to be exposed on the surface - suggests a "different rate" during the flood -- right?

Are we having a discussion where the basics are accepted or do we need to revisit them??

 

[Colter]

so then you know the difference between lava and magma right?

and you know the science of "current rate" x time = volume .... right?

And you understand that moving the continents around and causing world wide flood with the fountains of the deep opened up to be exposed on the surface - suggests a "different rate" during the flood -- right?

Are we having a discussion where the basics are accepted or do we need to revisit them??

You speak with a forked tongue, on the one hand you hold to a YEC event 6,000 years ago while here you are arguing that the earth is only millions of years old not billions. That's just blatantly inconsistent.

 

[Colter]

Outright confession –

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.
============================

How could a 50 year fraud be accepted as IF it is an "observed sequence in nature" when in fact "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".



I see.. "lamentable" and "never happened in nature" - but not "junk-science" to true believers -- and your argument is that they are "truth seekers" doing that.

Why hijack real science with junk science? As if "real science" is to blame for all of that "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

Is this a description of junk-science? or real science -- "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."

That is not ME saying that - it is atheist evolutionist scientists themselves!!



That is not ME quoted as saying "it never happened in nature" and saying "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. "

That is your own atheist evolutionist scientist -




Thank you for admitting - again - that belief in evolutionism drives toward "downsizing" and "dismissing" the Bible as nothing more than "Hebrews guesswork in Genesis"

HERE there can be no doubt at all - that we are really addressing hard-core details in OP -- in fact in the first two posts.


What can be said about the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

And it's not a matter of mocking the Bible, it's a respect for the limitations of the holy men who wrote the Bible relative to the age they lived. Biblical fetish makeing developed later.

 

[Colter]

Age stories - are what evolutionists make up "best" -- so at the wild-guessing-site mentioned above --

"The age of a river is difficult to determine. Generally, the age is estimated based primarily upon the age of any mountains it dissects;"

Now if you want - 'science' instead of the 'wild guess' - you "measure" the sedimentation rate at the river delta and the amount of sediment that has been deposited over time -- rate x time.... That is a "science" that is 'known'. (Even though we know that at the start of the river it's sedimentation rate would have to be larger then after the hydrologic cycle has settled and equalized for a few millennia)

But... ohhh no!! We don't want to talk about 'science' when we can use "wild guessing" if we are an evolutionist.

False accuser, study the Mississippi River delta to understand where deposits go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta

 

[Colter]

Wikipedia = Bwahahaha ..

Wiki lists it's sourses but one must keep in mind that you don't really want the truth.

 

[Colter]

Bottom line - the truly creative evolutionist can flee from one failed argument to the next - in a never-ending effort to assail the Bible account of the origin of life on earth.

You have that a little confused, science isn't trying to assail the Bible, it's emancipating mankind from the stunting effect of superstitious ignorance. The creators of the YEC story were truly blind speculators. They weren't writing for a science journal. But unfortunately the western world was negatively effected by the errors of the Biblical worldview as the church quashed science for as long as possible.

 

[Colter]

Dateing meteorites validates the radiometric dateing of the earth.

http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm