Uh uh uh, you can't change the rules like a child making up their own game. The first "rainbow" happens right after the flood. If pre-flood conditions didn't allow for such light refraction to happen, this must mark the change in physics. It had to happen then. Or are you claiming that some physics changed immediately, and some changed later?
I notice the rainbow in the future New Jerusalem is emerald green in color. Now what color was the rainbow Noah saw? We don't know! There was still a sun, and light, and colors. Now if the nature was different it would not surprise me that the rainbow was somewhat different also! Since we don't know, we cannot use it either way as evidence for or against a different or same nature.
Here's a hilarious thing, though: if there was a sudden change in physics, which would change the dating of fossils, then there would have to be a layer of sediment near the KT layer that dates significantly different than the layer below it to a ridiculous extent worldwide (marking the line between pre-modern physics and post modern physics). There is no such layer. No matter what you do or say, sir, your idea of what happened to this planet would leave behind some form of evidence.
I don't think so actually. You see all the dating so called is, is isotope patterns. Now let's say a rock had X amount of parent isotope in it before our nature started, and Y amount of daughter isotopes. At that time if there was no decay as we now know it, but some other way isotopes behaved, then no dates could be gotten from the ratios. Now after this nature came to exist, we would have the same ratios present. Same isotopes. Yet NOW they would be in a relationship where the daughter is being produced so now we look at how long that process takes, and assume all the daughter material got there BY decay. So you can't use the ratios for dating.
What would change at the layer representing the time of the nature change would NOT be the ratios but the MEANING of the ratios!
But, for the sake of the sanity of everyone that debates you, name the most RECENT that the supposed physics change could have occurred.
By the way, I know I could be wrong on all this. But I do believe absolutely that Noah and the flood and creation were real. So I do the best I can using evidences and Scripture to cook up some explanation.
That being said, as I see it, the flood was about 4500 years ago probably give or take a century or so. The nature change was, in my estimation, in the days of Peleg, who, by some accounts was born 101 years after the flood. He lived, if I recall, about 235 years or some such. His lifetime would be when the change happened. That is the window. My current feeling is that it may have been near the end of his life.
However, I don't even understand what the deal is with your claim that we'd have no fossils for pre-flood humans at all, or DNA from them. If their DNA was significantly different from our own, we wouldn't recognize them as our own species.
If helix was a somewhat different shape, or if the way things transferred was different, or etc.. it would still be human. Just because we may not have been able to leave remains does not change what man was. From dust we came and to dust we then would return!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, what? Tree rings are only used to date living or recently dead trees, because they form uniform bands that vary by season, not by how fast the tree grows. The older the tree, the more accurate a way that is to determine age, as the unusual seasons that produce fewer rings and those that produce more will balance out more. Tree rings have nothing to do with dating fossil ages. I have heard people mention that certain living trees are so old that they exceed the age of a young Earth, perhaps you are thinking of that. Living organisms can't collaborate fossil ages.
No, if a tree grew in weeks, and was alive 4300 years ago or whenever a nature change occurred, then it already had a bunch of rings before the change!
As for tree ring calibration of dates, yes, they use that,
"
Calibrating Carbon-14 Dating
One method of carbon-14 dating calibration involves the use of tree rings. Scientists have counted thousands of tiny tree rings from very long-lived trees called the bristlecone pines. Then, assuming that these trees only produce one ring per year, they determined how old the trees were when they died (In reality a tree may in fact produce several rings or no rings in a given year depending on environmental factors). By correlating the youngest rings with rings of living trees, they determined the year when the trees died and, presumably, knew how long it had been since each tree-ring died. Interestingly enough though, when carbon 14 dating was performed on the oldest rings, the “age” was significantly different when compared to the number of rings.
For example, say that a very old living tree has 2,500 rings. It seems at least reasonable then that this tree is around 2,500 years old and that the innermost rings are the oldest rings – right? Since the innermost rings died 2,500 years ago, the ratio of 14C to 12C detected in these innermost rings, as compared to the current ratio of 14C to 12C in today’s atmosphere, should give a very direct “age” of these rings that is very near 2,500 years – right? Wrong! The carbon-14 “age” will not match the tree ring “age” very well at all.
So now what? Well, fudge factors (which are called calibration factors) are used to correct the carbon 14 date. Is it all starting to sound a little less solid now? Many scientists are fond of claiming that all the various dating methods “agree” with each other. Well, of course they do if they are all “calibrated” so that they have to agree with each other. The fact of the matter is though that even the most reliable dating methods, such as tree ring dating and carbon-14 dating, do not agree with each other in an independent way and must therefore be calibrated with each other in order to make any sense. Of course, the process of calibration itself adds just one more level uncertainty to the date calculation. But, this uncertainty might not be too terribly significant depending upon the reliability of the calibration techniques."
Radiocarbon and Tree Ring Dating
Corals too
"Over the next thirty years many calibration curves were published using a variety of methods and statistical approaches.
[8] These were superseded by the INTCAL series of curves, beginning with INTCAL98, published in 1998, and updated in 2004, 2009, and, most recently, 2013. The improvements to these curves are based on new data gathered from tree rings,
varves, coral, and other studies."
Calibration of radiocarbon dates - Wikipedia
I am shocked you consider it to be a good point, given that you have stated that it was almost entirely invalid. Or are you just referring to the fact that, you have to admit, modern dating methods would work for anything that existed after the start of modern physics?
I was referring to how you addressed the actual issue, not so much that the way you did so was correct or powerful.
You mentioned genetic divergence of certain human populations after the flood. However, modern humans are historically pretty genetically similar to each other. Egyptian mummy DNA attests to that, and you have to admit that Egyptian societies went into full swing long after the flood. Basically, I am mentioning that there were other species that had societies that lived alongside us for a period of time, and they don't fit the description of giants or anything else mentioned in the bible. Neanderthals are genetically distinct from ourselves, but were intelligent enough to use fire. How do you explain them?
All DNA we have is post flood that I am aware. Naturally the post flood men would have similarities.
You are assuming that, even by your own standards. Fossils. Are. Rare. They are also difficult to find. Who are you to say that a human fossil could never be found in the KT layer or earlier, just because it hasn't happened yet?
Could be. But I would be surprised. As surprised as modern scientists.
Actually, kinda. You can measure the natural lifespan of a mammal by heartbeats. On average, mammals live for about 1 billion heartbeats. In humans, this takes approximately 35 years, which was a normal lifespan for us in our caveman days.
Interesting. But remember cave man is post flood man, roaming and using caves in some cases.
However, maximum potential lifespan can be measured by DNA itself. Every time one of your cells divides and replicates its DNA, a small section of the lagging strand is removed (does not occur in sex cells thanks to chemical protections, but happens in all other cells). This is one of the largest fundamental reasons for the death of an organism; eventually, the DNA within the cells of the body becomes too short to function anymore, and the cells die. There is a direct link between the lengths of one's DNA and the average lifespan in their family.
Possibly the different laws of the former nature did not see the same replication, removal of strands, and shortening we now see under current laws.
For an organism to "live in the fast lane" like we do and have a lifespan of 1000 years would require that their DNA to be much, much longer than ours.
Or not shorten as much or as fast or etc..
Since even pre-flood, children died (and we have collected old DNA from the fossilized bodies of children),
Before the KT layer!? No. So they were post flood.
it's safe to say that, aside from some shrinkage in the Y chromosome, our genomes have been about the same size for well over a thousand years (since women don't have Y chromosomes, that shrinkage would not impact female lifespan, but do note that in developed countries, women do have higher average lifespans than men).
For 1000 years...fine.
Thus, even in a mutation and illness free environment, organisms have a limit as to how long they can persist, with a few exceptions of a few eukaryotes that are functionally immortal, and bacteria and archaea, which have their DNA in a ring with no ends.
The limits are under OUR laws and nature.
So, yeah, anything recognizably human DNA wise wouldn't have a lifespan of 1000 years. Not even close.
Since you have no pre flood or former nature DNS, it is not relevant.
Or the bible is wrong. Seriously, that is an option. You haven't even come up with a reason why humans specifically would not have fossilized while other organisms would. Why do this? How do this? This claim is too empty to even deal with.
Because of a different nature. We are not looking for reason here in this nature and imagining ways to tweak our nature!
On a different note, Aman777's... different perspective on how the bible was an accurate depiction of reality is on my mind. The creative human process can be very... interesting to observe. I bring him up because I can actually see the reasoning behind how both of you came to the conclusions you did to try to explain the bible. Both of you were trying to reason how the bible could be true, but most scientific observations don't seem to match up with it. You took a path in which you assumed that something must be impacting the observations, preventing them from fully matching up with the bible. Aman777 took the path of attempting to interpret the bible differently, such that it matched up with scientific observations... in his mind, at least. I miss seeing the dynamically opposed debates between the two of you, even though I didn't agree with either of your positions.
I do not like the path of reinventing the bible totally! He might as well stick to fairy stories. I like real interpretations shared by scholars, and time tested. Yes there are different opinions, but the main interpretations are not absurd fringe crackpot made up idiocy as a rule.
