Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How would you know?Trees don't do that.
Okay, thanks, Hespera.
How would you know?
Once again, if you cut a tree down, and count 7000 rings, then you go back to cut more next year, expecting to count 7001 --- the tree is dead --- is it not?
Thus from thereafter, you'll only get 7000 rings.
You wrote: "Therefore the more recent geological evidence has the kinds in them." What do all the older fossils represent, then??
Not really. The book of generations and father/son ages and times are there. Believe it or not.The only "belief based" dating is one using the bible.
It doesn't, this is a temporary state, remember?Show me how hyper-evolution works. In detail. Or are you just talking?
And there is no evidence let alone a preponderance of it concerning ASP.Science works via what is inferred by the preponderance of the evidence. ..
Anyone with a good bible case, and a realization science has no case for any state past universe has authority.You have NO authority. You are NOT God. You are NOT his Prophet. You do NOT speak for God.
because they all start from the same error, and are bound to have similar wacked out outcomes.They agree with each other, yes... that is what I aksed you. Can you provide an answer? Why do they all agree with each other? ..
In this state we live in they don't, remember?What "evidence" indicates this? Show it to me. How exactly does "hyper-evolution" work? How does "different light" cause it? Tell us. Or are you just talking?
A biblically educated and founded guess, is founded on God's word. Whether or not some people assumed God was wrong, and had an uninspired book of silly tales, that needed to cowtow to the worthless wisdom of men.You "suspect" and "assume" and speculate all over the place. I can make up stories too... they are not "God's Word."
Jesus misunderstood too then. So did the apostles, and great men of God all the way through history...don't think so.It is only relevant to people like you who misunderstand scripture.
Jesus talking of Adam, or the flood, has to do not with Him being a Jew, but being there. 'Before Abraham was (and there were no Jews then, in case that is news) I AM'. Adam heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden. He can't be written out, written off, or waved away. get over it.So what? Jesus was a Jew. Of course he refered to The Old Testament. What does that have to do with your misunderstanding of it?
Not at all, the different state growth was in effect until something like 4400 years ago. No ammount of rings before that represent a year to year scale as they now do. Not unless of course this present state was in effect, and that is unknown, and unbiblical.
- Bristlecone Pines: The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
European Oaks: The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations).
[*]German Pine: The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
Lake Suigetsu: The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
Dunde Ice Core: The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
[*]Greenland Ice Cores: The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
[*]Antarctica Ice Cores: The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
Devil's Hole: The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core climate data.
[*]Coral Heads: The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
[*]Radiometric Correlations: the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
[*]Final Summary: the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.
However they now enter the atmosphere is merely a feature of this temporary present state, and no relation to how the carbon got here or not in a different state. If you could prove the same state past, you would have a case. You can't, you don't. How things get here, or decay, or grow are simply present things. There will be no deacy in the new heaven state,, it will last forever. Death and decay are present temporary state phenomena.Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. From "Carbon: Properties and Isotopes"(1):Carbon has 13 known isotopes, which have from 2 to 14 neutrons in the nucleus and mass numbers from 8 to 20. Carbon-12 was chosen by IUPAC in 1961 as the basis for atomic weights; it is assigned an atomic mass of exactly 12 atomic mass units. Carbon-13 absorbs radio waves and is used in nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry to study organic compounds. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is a naturally occurring isotope that can also be produced in a nuclear reactor.The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is normally very low compared to the amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 (both stable isotopes). From "The 14C Method"(7):Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.This atmospheric carbon-14 is produced by cosmic ray bombardment. From "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"(5):Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay. From "Glossary: Beta Decay"(9):
The strong and weak nuclear forces, and atomic balance we know are not part of the created state. The fabric of this universe applies just here, so you need to stop putting the decaying horse, before the everlasting state cart.During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of..
You forgot to mention that it is all present state dependent. The whole life process had substantial differences back then, for people to live a thousand years. Or trees to be able to grow fast. If a tree in one state, for example used nitrogen, and produced carbon, or visa verso, it could be the opposite may hold true in the other state. Measuring what is now a product, therefore, cannot be assumed to have also been a product in another state. The error is all your methods is assuming first this state, and then proceeding from there. First, you need to be sure of that, or you ain't going anywhere.This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:
- If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
- The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
- The age derived from carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.
Ok. tree rings are easy, they only count after 4400 years or some such. For, if the tree could grow in weeks or months, no number of rings means years. Climate is easy, show me the climate at the time of the flood??! Oh, and how you think you know as wellAnyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method need to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age.
Ridiculous. Your model is simply incompatible with the biblical records and state of the creation era that it was in. Only a present state rate and process of tree growth, and light, and habitat, etc is incompatiblle with the biblical record. I notice the physical only science also woefully ignores the nearly universal knowledge of the spiritual. It also omits Gof from it's knowledge. It waves around PO models furiously, trying to wave God and His word away. It is meaningless, unless you establish this present state in the far past.This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated based on tree-ring data alone.
So, what were the dinosaurs all adapted from??The pre flood older stuff has the kinds and the adapted kinds for the day in it. The post flood record has the kinds, and the adapted kinds for their day in it.
Believe it or not is correct. That is why I wrote that it is belief based. Thanks for agreeing with me on that finally.Not really. The book of generations and father/son ages and times are there. Believe it or not.
Then tell us how it did work then. Or are you just talking?It doesn't, this is a temporary state, remember?
There is plenty. You dismiss it all out of hand because it disagrees with your erroneous interpretation of scripture.And there is no evidence let alone a preponderance of it concerning ASP.
More hubris. You do not understand either science nor the Bible. How does that make you an authority on either??Anyone with a good bible case, and a realization science has no case for any state past universe has authority.
Wrong. They should have different "wacked out" outcomes. Fail again!because they all start from the same error, and are bound to have similar wacked out outcomes.
Then tell us all the details on how hyper-evolution worked in the past state. Or are you just talking?In this state we live in they don't, remember?
You are using "the worthless wisdom of men" to interpret scripture, then. Thanks for clearing that up for us!A biblically educated and founded guess, is founded on God's word. Whether or not some people assumed God was wrong, and had an uninspired book of silly tales, that needed to cowtow to the worthless wisdom of men.
Who says so? Did Jesus speak of how he walked in the Garden with Adam? Or refer to any direct interactions with Adam? NO.Jesus misunderstood too then. So did the apostles, and great men of God all the way through history...don't think so.
Jesus talking of Adam, or the flood, has to do not with Him being a Jew, but being there. 'Before Abraham was (and there were no Jews then, in case that is news) I AM'. Adam heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden. He can't be written out, written off, or waved away. get over it.
How would you know?
Once again, if you cut a tree down, and count 7000 rings, then you go back to cut more next year, expecting to count 7001 --- the tree is dead --- is it not?
Thus from thereafter, you'll only get 7000 rings.
Not at all, the different state growth was in effect until something like 4400 years ago. No ammount of rings before that represent a year to year scale as they now do. Not unless of course this present state was in effect, and that is unknown, and unbiblical.
Same as above, Noah saw a fresh grown tree twig after a week. They used to grow fast.
Not at all, the deposition rates were not as present.
The ice age was in the far past state, whatever that was science has no idea. They go by present deposition, and etc. Meaningless dream dates.
Only if the decay state of the present caused all things we see and know to be as they are. If there was another state of the universe, and laws, and no decay, present based backwards extrapolations and measurements of material now produced by deacy has no bearing on great time.
However they now enter the atmosphere is merely a feature of this temporary present state, and no relation to how the carbon got here or not in a different state. If you could prove the same state past, you would have a case. You can't, you don't.
How things get here, or decay, or grow are simply present things. There will be no deacy in the new heaven state,, it will last forever. Death and decay are present temporary state phenomena.
The strong and weak nuclear forces, and atomic balance we know are not part of the created state. The fabric of this universe applies just here, so you need to stop putting the decaying horse, before the everlasting state cart.
FIRST, you need a present state back in creation time, for your present rules to apply there, and you do not. So, if you want to build a reactor, we can discuss present arrangment of nuclear decay, and spin, and number of elctrons, etc. If we want to talk creation state, or new heaven state, we need to talk spiriton, and spiritual force balance, and spiritual counterpart forces, and how adding the physical only and the spiritual react! You are missing the better half of the equation. Therefore what you offer is relative only to the box.
You forgot to mention that it is all present state dependent. The whole life process had substantial differences back then, for people to live a thousand years. Or trees to be able to grow fast.
If a tree in one state, for example used nitrogen, and produced carbon, or visa verso, it could be the opposite may hold true in the other state.
Measuring what is now a product, therefore, cannot be assumed to have also been a product in another state. The error is all your methods is assuming first this state, and then proceeding from there. First, you need to be sure of that, or you ain't going anywhere.
Ok. tree rings are easy, they only count after 4400 years or some such. For, if the tree could grow in weeks or months, no number of rings means years.
Climate is easy, show me the climate at the time of the flood??! Oh, and how you think you know as wellAnd, finally, the C levels, and even ways carbon was used in the different state?
Or, failing that, at least prove a same state past, or you have nothing at all. Nothing but a gross misrepresentation of the present facts applied in the head to where they cannot be proven to belong!
Ridiculous. Your model is simply incompatible with the biblical records and state of the creation era that it was in. Only a present state rate and process of tree growth, and light, and habitat, etc is incompatiblle with the biblical record.
I notice the physical only science also woefully ignores the nearly universal knowledge of the spiritual. It also omits Gof from it's knowledge. It waves around PO models furiously, trying to wave God and His word away. It is meaningless, unless you establish this present state in the far past.
But I will commend you for effort in the cut and paste job. It presents the lack of a case being able to apply to the past quite well. I would sub title the post 'things that also need flushing, and why'
[/size]
Evidence?
Not a fig tree. That would be world news.I've seen trees put out leaves in a week. Nothing new there.
For evidence that they do go by present deposition rates, and etc in dating ice cores, one merely would need to google ice core dating.Evidence?
German pine tree rings are nothing special. If there was a German pine growing fast before the state change, it could have high ring numbers in it at a young age, and simply carry on aith present rates as the present state came to exist.So why the 12,000 year timescale?
Right, It wouldn't look like a present decay curve. Neither need it have any decay, or decay rate.So do you have evidence for this "different state" past? I would assume a decay rate for C14 (if we did have a "different state" past wouldn't look like this:
Not many actually were alive after the flood, and the lifespans dropped exponentially. It rapidly settled into close to the present range.Have any evidence? We haven't found any ancient human skeletons with 600 years of bone growth.
Science does not provide evidence for the state of the universe at the time of early tree growth. Neither could it know how the very different universe life processes worked, hence what then produced or used carbon. Therefore, if we see a pattern of less carbon 13, or 14 or whatever, for example, and there was a different state, we could deduce that it got there some other way than it now gets there, knowing the actual age. The bible believer is privy to extra information to work with, and therefore a more accurate picture.Evidence?
But dead trees nearby, even older than 4400 years would also be different state trees. So that changes nothing!The 12,000 year date is both shown by C14 dating of wood samples and by comparing tree ring growth. It is not just counting the rings of a single tree. It is counting/comparing rings of several trees.
The expected decay ratio of C 14 for the 6000 years or whatever that the rings represent the different state, are actually less than 100 years or some such, in actual time. If I take a half empty pool in a yard, and start filling it with water at a certain rate, say, one pint per hour, it might take, say, 4 days to fill. If someone showed up when the pool was 97% full, and measured the rate it was filling up, and assumed it started empty, they would date the filling of the pool to, for example, 2 weeks. In actual fact, it was already half full, and the rate that was observed (science hasn't been around long) is no indication of fill time. They need to be privy to the fact it was not starting on empty. They were not. All they did was use present fill rates, and calculate backwards. The result is totally wrong. If the first half happened to be filled with a different hose, that shot out 100 times the water, that also affects the total fill time. The guy sitting there at the end of the fill simply assumes wrong, adds up wrong and is wrong.So why does C14 dating correlate so well with dendrochronology?
Yup --- some time ago, I issued what I called My Checkers Challenge, where I showed how someone could assume a stack of checkers has been there for 20,000 years when, in reality, it was there only 4000.If I take a half empty pool in a yard, and start filling it with water at a certain rate, say, one pint per hour, it might take, say, 4 days to fill. If someone showed up when the pool was 97% full, and measured the rate it was filling up, and assumed it started empty, they would date the filling of the pool to, for example, 2 weeks. In actual fact, it was already half full, and the rate that was observed (science hasn't been around long) is no indication of fill time. They need to be privy to the fact it was not starting on empty.
Unlike the stabbing in the dark science must do, and/or admitting ignorance of what went on in the former times, and state, the bible has the record.
Yup --- some time ago, I issued what I called My Checkers Challenge, where I showed how someone could assume a stack of checkers has been there for 20,000 years when, in reality, it was there only 4000.
I issued it in General Apologetics (I think), so it's gone now --- but here's a post I found: 58.
No it doesn't. If anything, religious fundamentalism has been the worst enemy of the progress of empirical knowledge.
And isn't it the modern Inquisition that forbade prayer in the schools? Bibles and creation in the classroom, and forced worship of fables?Wasn't it the inquisition who locked up Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun?
Present natural history is temporal state history. Scientific truth is so limited as to be ridiculous, when forced on a creation time that was way beyond physical only.The bible is full of wisdom and spiritual truth, even history, but not natural history or scientific truth.
There are other sources of truth outside of the bible and there are some things which the bible does not provide an explanation for.
You aren't using the internet on your computer because computer engineers were reading the bible and it told them how to build a computer. They used science to do it.
That would be the honest answer --- but uniformitarianists would conclude (and teach) that that stack has been there for 20,000 years.OK, I can try. If all that was observed was the last 4 checkers, that means the first 16 were not observed. We can say that the 4 checkers took 4000 years. But we don't know for sure about the 16..?
That would be the honest answer --- but uniformitarianists would conclude (and teach) that that stack has been there for 20,000 years.
What would be your answer to my challenge then?If we do not have an understanding of the mechanism behind the appearce of the checkers, we cannot say with certainty what the rate of appearence of checkers is. We can say what the rate was, for the period we observered, but we cannot be certain that it was always this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?