Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[Soul Searcher]

Just read an article about how mass extinctions were not caused by comets/asteroids after all, at best smaller ones! The big impact on Jupiter illustrates the gravitational protection of the big planets over earth.

I have only read the first page so forgive me if this has been addressed already but I just can't get over the notion of the big planets protecting us from asteriods. Sure they get hit, they are large and have a lot of gravity so they are better targets but have these people not heard of the asteroid belt?

There is no "big planets" between us and these asteroids and many of them are plenty large enough to cause us to have a very bad day to say the least. Yes the big planets may shield us from some asteroids and comets but to think that means we have not or will not be hit is akin to buring ones head in the sand.

 

[AV1611VET]

4. I am not an atheist.

Glad to hear that, but for the record, the Bible doesn't call them 'atheists', either.

 

[Hespera]

Glad to hear that, but for the record, the Bible doesn't call them 'atheists', either.

And what difference does it make what the bible does or doesnt say?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what difference does it make what the bible does or doesnt say?

Well, according to you guys, It must say quite a bit.

After all, It called for the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials --- didn't It?

For someone who doesn't care what the Bible says, I have to wonder what makes you guys go on and on about geocentrism, sun standing still, Pi, and all these other ways you guys interpret It.

If you think It doesn't say anything, and that It's not a Living Book --- like It claims to be --- stick around.

 

[Split Rock]

Glad to hear that, but for the record, the Bible doesn't call them 'atheists', either.

More interpretation on your part then... correct?

 

[BananaSlug]

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. And there are a few good indications that the spiritual also state has real fast tree growth.

Can you provide some evidence for this real fast tree growth?

Not a fig tree. That would be world news.

Don't you mean olive tree (if you are talking about after the flood)?

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.

Can you provide evidence for drastically faster deposition rates?

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 would the C14 date match the dendrochronological age?

And the carbon in them either. The different life processes and levels, and ways carbon was made, and produced..etc, mean that we should not look for present carbon decay as a dating method.

But then why does the C14 age match the dendrochronological age?

Right, It wouldn't look like a present decay curve. Neither need it have any decay, or decay rate.

Do you have any evidence to support an alternative decay curve?

Not many actually were alive after the flood, and the lifespans dropped exponentially. It rapidly settled into close to the present range.

Can you provide some archaeological evidence to support long live in ancient people? You would think if there were so many people living to over 300 years old we would find some of their skeletons...

Science does not provide evidence for the state of the universe at the time of early tree growth.

Can you provide some evidence for the state of the universe at the time of early tree growth? All of the phenomena we see in the geologic record can be explained using "present state" science. Can you provide something that cannot be explained using "present state" science?

Neither could it know how the very different universe life processes worked, hence what then produced or used carbon.

Do you know how it worked?

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.

Care to provide a working hypothesis to test? Care to provide any examples to lend support to your scenario?

The bible believer is privy to extra information to work with, and therefore a more accurate picture.

So who is right? AV and his "embedded age", which he says is supported by the Bible, or your "different state" past, which you claim is supported by the Bible. You cannot both be right.
​

But dead trees nearby, even older than 4400 years would also be different state trees. So that changes nothing!

Except for the fact they are older than 4400 years?

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.

What? By comparing the rings from different trees from present to past and using C14 we have an accurate reading back to 12000 years. We do not see any drastic change in the rings as we get to 4400 years, they simply keep going back.

We take trees and match ring sequences. You would think if the "state" of the past had changed drastically we wouldn't be able to match the ring sequence from trees that were dated at 4350 years vs trees that were 4400 years old (look at the above pic to see how dendrochronology works).

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.

But the fill time never changed, it was always constant. Measuring C14 is more like seeing how long it takes for a pool to become empty.

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.

The fill rate was right. The point is they don't study a single pool, there are other pools around it, some almost empty, some totally full, others in between. That is how it works, not by studying a single "pool" and making a calculation but by studying several "pools" with different amounts of water (and they all have the same fill rate). Your comparison is severely flawed.

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.

If the pool was filled with a different hose that released that much water, there would be evidence around the pool (a hose line in the grass, footprints, mudwash, etc) vs the other pools. Again your comparison is flawed.

The carbon 14 ratio in the first half of the pool, so to speak, in the growing trees, being in a different state, was not produced as it now is. Therefore, one must know the former state, to get it right. Even if it seems to add up, to the partially informed.

Each tree is a pool. The C14 is the water but the rings are the copyright date.

Remember, that the dead trees, even if sequential, might represent only months, or years even if there are thousands of rings on them, if they are different state tree growth trees.

So why would there be such a smooth transition? Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

So, we simply need to go back to the split, say, 4400 years, and tack on a couple more years, let us be generous here, and tack on 100 years. That is 4500 years. The oldest living tree on earth is close to that age, if we use ring year dates.

The world's oldest tree was Prometheus, a 5,000 year old bristlecone pine that was cut down in 1964. Methuselah is 4,800 years old. Trees that have fast growth have wide rings, whether due to increased rainfall, fertilizers, etc.

Why would these "past state" rings look the same as "present state" rings?

(But even then, the living tree could have plenty of rings already when the present state kicked in, rendering them useless a dating rings)

So why would "past state" rings, if trees grew faster, be similar to "present state" rings. We know that fast growth in "present state" rings have wide rings. We also find rings similar to "present state" fast growth in these so called "past state" tree fossils.

Therefore in real time, no tree is older than 4500 years here, so the 7500 years are purely imagined.

Do you have some evidence is support of your claim?

That leaves the carbon ratios in the trees as simple measures that a different carbon 14 ratio than we know now was in effect before this state existed. No news there.

Evidence?

Therefore the carbon dating is nothing in this world but trying to explain the different ratios by using present concepts, decay rates, and etc! That is why.

So why would objects in the "past state" have decay rates that confirm "present state" science? Do you have any evidence for your claims?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you provide some evidence for this real fast tree growth?

Hypergrowth in Eden:

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Notice that God created Adam in Eden (Pangaea), but He wasn't finished yet --- He still needs to create Eve.

So he plants a garden, hypergrows it, places Adam there, puts him to sleep, and when he wakes up --- the rest is history.

How do we know He hypergrew it?

It was all done on Day Six.

 

[BananaSlug]

Hypergrowth in Eden:Notice that God created Adam in Eden (Pangaea), but He wasn't finished yet --- He still needs to create Eve.

So he plants a garden, hypergrows it, places Adam there, puts him to sleep, and when he wakes up --- the rest is history.

How do we know He hypergrew it?

It was all done on Day Six.

Well according to you he erased all signs of his creating for who knows why.

The point is we have 12,000 years of correlating tree rings. According to you there should only be 6,000 years of correlating tree rings (because trees weren't created until 6,000 years ago). A 4.5 billion year old earth with only 6,000 years of actual history.
According to "embedded age" is a 12,000 year old tree fossil "embedded" with 12,000 year age? Why would there be overlapping tree rings covering 12,000 years if there was only 6,000 years of actual tree growth?

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is we have 12,000 years of correlating tree rings.

I don't think any trees survived the Flood, but to answer your question, what if God created that tree with 10,000 rings already intact?

And before you shout "Omphalos" --- suppose He did it for the tree's sake?

Look at it this way, a new-born baby has only so much mass in the form of number of skin cells --- Adam, however, was created with much more cellular mass than a new-born baby.

Where did this extra mass come from --- and why?

God did it, and He did it to make Adam a mature man, not a new-born baby.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think any trees survived the Flood, but to answer your question, what if God created that tree with 10,000 rings already intact?

Then we wouldn't find it, because it didn't survive, according to you...

 

[BananaSlug]

I don't think any trees survived the Flood,

According to the Bible they did...
6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him. Genesis 8:6-12

but to answer your question, what if God created that tree with 10,000 rings already intact?

Why would he need to? A fruit tree with 20 rings could make as much fruit as a tree with 10,000.

And before you shout "Omphalos" --- suppose He did it for the tree's sake?

Are you saying God couldn't have created a tree with 20 rings that is just as strong as a tree with 10,000? Why do you doubt God's power?

Look at it this way, a new-born baby has only so much mass in the form of number of skin cells --- Adam, however, was created with much more cellular mass than a new-born baby.

That is according to same state present science. We know nothing about the past state.

Where did this extra mass come from --- and why?
God did it, and He did it to make Adam a mature man, not a new-born baby.

A tree doesn't have to have 10,000 rings to be "mature". Dendrochronology is not about counting the rings of a few trees. It is matching ring growth with several hundred to a few thousand trees. This measurement from different trees is what allows us to see back around 12,000 years and it is correlated by C14 dating. Why would that last tree be shown to be 12,000 years by both dendrochronology and C14 dating?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then we wouldn't find it, because it didn't survive, according to you...

That's true --- so God must have hypergrew the world back, after the Flood, when He cleaned it up.

Either that, or some trees did survive the Flood --- (but I can't imagine that happening).

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would that last tree be shown to be 12,000 years by both dendrochronology and C14 dating?

Because God did it.

All this correlation points to one source (or One Source) --- does it not?

 

[gaara4158]

That's true --- so God must have hypergrew the world back, after the Flood, when He cleaned it up.

Either that, or some trees did survive the Flood --- (but I can't imagine that happening).

Either way you're now making it up as you go along to make it work. Take a note of that.

 

[dad]

I have only read the first page so forgive me if this has been addressed already but I just can't get over the notion of the big planets protecting us from asteriods. Sure they get hit, they are large and have a lot of gravity so they are better targets but have these people not heard of the asteroid belt?

They protect us from getting clobbered big time from objects outside our system. No? There is no doubt the earth has been hit, and will again get hit with stuff from the heavens. For example a falling star will hit the earth, the bible says, and destroy the ocean water. But nothing will impact earth to destroy the planet, we are protected.

The asteroid belt I suspect may be debris from earth, from the time near the flood, of great changes on this planet. The entire mass apparently of the belt, is

"..the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon"

Asteroid belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the Oort cloud, the combined mass is not known.


"Its total mass is not known with certainty, but, assuming that Halley's comet is a suitable prototype for all comets within the outer Oort cloud, the estimated combined mass is 3 × 1025 kilograms, or roughly five times the mass of the Earth.[1][16] Earlier it was thought to be more massive (up to 380 Earth masses),[17] but improved knowledge of the size distribution of long-period comets has led to much lower estimates. The mass of the inner Oort cloud is not currently known."

Oort cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the estimates have been racheted down to 5 times the mass of the earth, from 380 times the mass of the earth! That was something like 760 times less mass!

I see no reason at all to assume that Halley's comet is a prototype for measuring the whole cloud! That is a godless, and wild stretch. I would therefore have to remain open to also considering that the cloud may have also come from the earth, and is less mass than the Halley based assumption! Subject to evidence of course. Something they now lack.

There is no "big planets" between us and these asteroids and many of them are plenty large enough to cause us to have a very bad day to say the least. Yes the big planets may shield us from some asteroids and comets but to think that means we have not or will not be hit is akin to buring ones head in the sand.

No, it is true that there is stuff nearby. And that some will hit us.

 

[Soul Searcher]

They protect us from getting clobbered big time from objects outside our system. No?

To some extent yes they offer some protection they are large and may fall in the path of an aproaching object. That said the size of the large planets compared the the size of thier orbital path is rather small and at most a small percentage of oncoming objects would be sucked in by these planets. Jupiter for example orbits very slowly compared to earth resulting in the path being unobstructed by this planet much of the year. The same is true for the other gas giants. Comets have passed somewhat close to our planet in the last couple hundred years meaning they have made it past the big planets and can do so again. These did not hit the earth and may or may not ever hit the earth only time will tell but Jupiter as a defense is like having a bullet proof armor the size of a dime.

 

[dad]

Can you provide some evidence for this real fast tree growth?

There is biblical evidence. Since science is stuck in the here and now like a fly on a sticky tape, you will have to take that. Or leave it and dwell in the unknown.

Don't you mean olive tree (if you are talking about after the flood)?

Yes. They don't grow in a week.

Can you provide evidence for drastically faster deposition rates?

Well, there is no need, actually. Because nothing says they were as present. Now does it!? So why would I doubt a flood, and fast growth, and different laws, etc????

So why would the C14 date match the dendrochronological age?

There are no C14 dates, not past the time where the amount and ratio was no longer a creature of this state. And science can't say how long that is. All it has done is by science of the here and now, is to assume the there and then was the same. That is meaningless, without solid evidence. And of course evidence is not what if the same state existed calculations, scenarios, and stories.

Do you have any evidence to support an alternative decay curve?

If there was no decay, who needs a curve? What we had was extra material, ( or less) than would be expected IF it all transpired and was formed, and caused in, and by a same state past!

Can you provide some archaeological evidence to support long live in ancient people? You would think if there were so many people living to over 300 years old we would find some of their skeletons...

Can you tell me what difference we would expect in 'skeletons'? Would Peleg's skeleton look different than Noah's?

Can you provide some evidence for the state of the universe at the time of early tree growth? All of the phenomena we see in the geologic record can be explained using "present state" science. Can you provide something that cannot be explained using "present state" science?

So what, it can be explained using the tooth fairy, but she is not evidenced either, any more than a same state past. It is no less sensical to have a fairy wave her wand, and create a little speck, from which all the known universe sailed out of, than to accept the insane conclusions of science.

Care to provide a working hypothesis to test? Care to provide any examples to lend support to your scenario?

Well, If this refers to the carbon in the trees, all we do is look at trees as no more than 4500 years old. test the rest. How much of a clue do you need? I am spoon feeding you here.

So who is right? AV and his "embedded age", which he says is supported by the Bible, or your "different state" past, which you claim is supported by the Bible. You cannot both be right.

Embedded age is interesting. But since it isn't the topic, I see no need to agrue about it, unless the one that believed it wanted to raise it.

I never leaned to that idea myself at all, because of things like fossils in the rocks. They had to get there somehow.
​

What? By comparing the rings from different trees from present to past and using C14 we have an accurate reading back to 12000 years.

No, you sure do not have anything remotely similar to that nature at all.

Not unless you could prove a SSP. Otherwise no tree is older than 4500 years, regardless or rings, which then cease to relate to years at all! Bulletproof. And the C14 after that period merely reflectts the different levels present at the time, and how the subsequent decay, etc affected it.

We do not see any drastic change in the rings as we get to 4400 years, they simply keep going back.

Although no change is really required, I do not believe you. Really I don't. I challenge you here to present us a picture of rings beyond the 4500 level???!!!!! I have asked others and, strangely, they come up empty. I would like to see you do that.

We take trees and match ring sequences. You would think if the "state" of the past had changed drastically we wouldn't be able to match the ring sequence from trees that were dated at 4350 years vs trees that were 4400 years old (look at the above pic to see how dendrochronology works).

False. The patterns that woulld exist after the state change period woulld affect all the trees in the area. But I really do not believe you will be able to provide us any samples. I would be interested to look at that.

But the fill time never changed, it was always constant. Measuring C14 is more like seeing how long it takes for a pool to become empty.

You still need to know when the plug was pulled, and the empty rate at the unobserved stages! Any way you shake it, you come up short.

The fill rate was right. The point is they don't study a single pool, there are other pools around it, some almost empty, some totally full, others in between. That is how it works, not by studying a single "pool" and making a calculation but by studying several "pools" with different amounts of water (and they all have the same fill rate). Your comparison is severely flawed.

You miss the point, no other pool was observed either for the time. Get out of that one.

If the pool was filled with a different hose that released that much water, there would be evidence around the pool (a hose line in the grass, footprints, mudwash, etc) vs the other pools. Again your comparison is flawed.

No, The evidence of a hose was not detectable, all that was seen was the present hose. The silly observer never even thought to check for evidence, but assumed that everything was explainable by present things.

Each tree is a pool. The C14 is the water but the rings are the copyright date.

No, the universe is the pool, and the hose is the fabric and laws that now operate.

So why would there be such a smooth transition? Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Because it was well thunk out. Designed, to carefully, with all things in consideration, result in the temporal state prison man exists in. No accident. No chaos, and fluke fest of fantastic coinceneces involved at all. No little invisible hot soup specks spitting oout the universe, or anything else the PO wisdom of man imagined.

The world's oldest tree was Prometheus, a 5,000 year old bristlecone pine that was cut down in 1964. Methuselah is 4,800 years old. Trees that have fast growth have wide rings, whether due to increased rainfall, fertilizers, etc.

No, that is same state religion, and mentally assigning imaginary dates, based on the present state happenings, and laws, and ways.

Why would these "past state" rings look the same as "present state" rings?

Why would you not show a pic of rings beyond 4500 level!!!?? How would we know, I have never seen any. You? Tell the truth. Last time I asked a super educated hot debater, he informed me, if I recall, that the rings were missing! But that is a long story. Let's see you wow us.

So why would "past state" rings, if trees grew faster, be similar to "present state" rings. We know that fast growth in "present state" rings have wide rings. We also find rings similar to "present state" fast growth in these so called "past state" tree fossils.

Slow down. Show us some first, before just claiming stuff. --Lurkers, think we'll get a pic?

So why would objects in the "past state" have decay rates that confirm "present state" science? Do you have any evidence for your claims?

No decay in the former state that I am aware of. So, no decay rates.

 

[dad]

To some extent yes they offer some protection they are large and may fall in the path of an aproaching object. That said the size of the large planets compared the the size of thier orbital path is rather small and at most a small percentage of oncoming objects would be sucked in by these planets. Jupiter for example orbits very slowly compared to earth resulting in the path being unobstructed by this planet much of the year. The same is true for the other gas giants. Comets have passed somewhat close to our planet in the last couple hundred years meaning they have made it past the big planets and can do so again. These did not hit the earth and may or may not ever hit the earth only time will tell but Jupiter as a defense is like having a bullet proof armor the size of a dime.

OK, but for a temporary arrangement, it is pretty good. If things were not in perfect control, I might get nervous.

 

[Soul Searcher]

OK, but for a temporary arrangement, it is pretty good. If things were not in perfect control, I might get nervous.

Not sure what you mean about things being in perfect control. We are a small target but on the cosmic stage we are no better protected than the soldier with the dime sized armor and we have absolutely no control over it.

 

[dad]

Not sure what you mean about things being in perfect control. We are a small target but on the cosmic stage we are no better protected than the soldier with the dime sized armor and we have absolutely no control over it.

I mean think about it, if you created a planet, would you let debris destroy it? No. People can relax.