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

[BananaSlug]

No alteration NI present universe and laws. The change was from something else, and this state is the result.

Again you failed to answer the question. Here it is again:
If some "big alteration" in the laws of physics changed 4500 years ago, such as no radioactive decay, then we wouldn't find any objects over 4500 years of age. Why do we find objects over 4500 years of age?

Science doesn't know. There is evidence in history and the bible. Changes such and ten fold longer lifespans.

Again you failed to respond to my question:
You have claimed there is no physical evidence in support of the "different state" past. If there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

Yes. The daughter and parent material were here already. They never all got here as a result of decay, as daughters now get here.

Here is the question I asked:
So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence. Can you explain this?

Shoow us some deeper than 45000 thick, and let's take a look! Why, you seen some, and speak from experience?!

I'm still waiting on this "history" of an altered past from a source other than a loon's interpretation of vague Biblical verses.

The evidence would be interpreted as caused by something present.

So the dinosaurs went extinct from a "present" asteroid? You claimed the evidence was visible, then you claim it is not visible, and now you claim it is interpreted as "caused by something present". Can you provide any evidence as to why we should assume the pillow lava of the "past state" was formed differently compared to pillow lave of this "present state"?

Already explained that. The materials in the rock do not show there was decay then, just that there are materials in the rock. The decay is now, and for the last 4400 years.

You missed the entire point of the question! If radioactive decay did not exist until around 4400 years ago, we shouldn't find any rocks that are older than 4400 years. If all the rock we tested was only 4400 years old, then that would be support for your scenario. However we find rock older than 4400 years. Why do we find rock older than 4400 years if decay didn't exist until 4400 years ago?

Tree rings go right to about the right time! The axis of the earth is recorded to have changed, and Dodwell pinpointed the date of the change by making a curve from 66 data points. The geologic column supports the migration from Eden! No evidence opposes the concept,

The axis of the earth has changed several times in the past. Milankovitch Theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 23,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

False!! He did not simply kick en out. He cursed the entire surface of the earth, the ground. And the plants, etc. Adam also lost eternal life, and started to live just a thousand or so years, then die.

Wrong. He kicked A&E out of Eden so they could not eat of the Tree of Life.
22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24

The only thing that gave A&E eternal life was the Tree of Life.

He cursed the ground by causing briars and brambles to grow, he did not curse all plants.

Later, after the flood, we see even bigger changes to the laws.

Evidence?

It says that the earth and sun will last forever, that eliminates decay. Not even rust will corrupt there.

The Bible still doesn't say anything about radioactive decay or the physics of the past.

The sun uses nuclear fusion, which is a totally different concept from radioactive decay. If rust will not corrupt, how will we breathe? Iron rusts because of oxidation. Hemoglobin contains iron, which (because of oxidation) enables the red blood cells to transfer oxygen to various parts of the body.

So I think everyone can agree the Bible says squat on radioactive decay. Unless you can provide a specific verse that supports your idea, you are dead in the water.

No, you sure can't! All the ways that anything is dated by so called science is present state based.

I really think you are seriously confused. Let me ask it again...
So why, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, do we find rock older than 4500 years? You would think the oldest rocks we find would only be ~4500 years old. Can you explain why our "present state" science shows them to be older?

Gen 2 is a more detailed look at what was already done, and finished. It explains that the Lord planted the garden!

It doesn't say anything about super fast growth. It may have been kept secret from you, but it is possible to plant mature plants in a garden.

By the way, I see no 'formed' here!?

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

^I guess God grew animals from seed too?

We know when the flood was, and where we are noow. There was no time for 'regular' evolving.

When was the flood? Does the Bible say exactly when the flood happened?

First of all, death as far as I understand it applied to Eden's creatures. Not all life on earth, or in Eden. How algae worked then, I don't know. Why? Who cares? Point?

Funny, in this exact post I am replying to you just said:

He cursed the entire surface of the earth, the ground. And the plants, etc.

So did God curse the entire earth or not? You claim he did, then you claim he didn't.

Algae are technically plants (protists more closely allied with plants). In our "present state" algal blooms cause massive dieoffs in fish populations because the decay of the algae suck all of the dissolved oxygen out of the water. If God cursed creation after original sin, would the effect be the same? Why would the curse before the "split" be less harsh than what we are cursed with now?

 

[dad]

Again you failed to answer the question. Here it is again:
If some "big alteration" in the laws of physics changed 4500 years ago, such as no radioactive decay, then we wouldn't find any objects over 4500 years of age. Why do we find objects over 4500 years of age?

Because creation was 6000 plus years ago. Things are older than 4500 years old. But you do not find them by radioactive dating. No alteration in the laws of physics occurred. What about that are you missing? The present laws would be what came to exist as the original state was changed, NOT our state.

Again you failed to respond to my question:
You have claimed there is no physical evidence in support of the "different state" past. If there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

Try to comprehend, I am making it easy for you here. No change IN the present laws. Get it?

Here is the question I asked:
So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence. Can you explain this?

No, it would not stand to reason, unless there was this same decay, and state we see now. Was there? Prove it.

I'm still waiting on this "history" of an altered past from a source other than a loon's interpretation of vague Biblical verses.

The biggest difference is the separation of the spiritual. The ancient records ooze with spiritual beings existing right here among men. There is also the flood accounts, and long lifespans.

So the dinosaurs went extinct from a "present" asteroid?

No. Thatt is a theory, based on a lot of same state assumptions. The dinos went extinct, because this planet wasn't made for them. Dinos likely were evolved from birds, and maybe reptiles, etc. The exit from Eden saw a need to be able to evolve, because this planet was not suitable for life. At least not the majority of Eden's creatures. I can prove that, by the way, if you doubt. With science.

You claimed the evidence was visible, then you claim it is not visible, and now you claim it is interpreted as "caused by something present". Can you provide any evidence as to why we should assume the pillow lava of the "past state" was formed differently compared to pillow lave of this "present state"?

That depends. On the instance, and location.

You missed the entire point of the question! If radioactive decay did not exist until around 4400 years ago,

False, obviously. The creation was already here. How would the onset of this present state be expected to mean that rocks only started to exist then???? Absurd.

we shouldn't find any rocks that are older than 4400 years. If all the rock we tested was only 4400 years old, then that would be support for your scenario. However we find rock older than 4400 years. Why do we find rock older than 4400 years if decay didn't exist until 4400 years ago?

You cannot test rock for actual age. Your so called dating is 100% same state past religion, and meanigless to actual time.

The axis of the earth has changed several times in the past. Milankovitch Theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years.

Utter nonsense. That is hand waving, and using dreamed up same state past conditions and events, etc to try to explain all things. No, it was not the orbit that changed the climate, that is an old wive's tale. I dare you to prove it, I guarantee it is a lie.

The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years.

False!!! That is nothing more than present state based dreaming.

At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 23,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

All I can agree with is the decrease bit. The rest is religion. Try to provide details, and basis for your claims, and I will slice it to smithereens, if you like. It is simply nonsense.

Wrong. He kicked A&E out of Eden so they could not eat of the Tree of Life.
22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24

The only thing that gave A&E eternal life was the Tree of Life.

I disagree. They had that already. The tree of life would have given it to them again. That was not going to be allowed to happen, for fallen man. ...To enter eternity as a filthy depraved sinner.

He cursed the ground by causing briars and brambles to grow, he did not curse all plants.

I know. But it is reasonable to assume that the briars and etc were evolved plants of some kind. Just as mosquitoes never used to suck blood, or bees sting.

The Bible still doesn't say anything about radioactive decay or the physics of the past.

Oh, yes. All sorts of things can be deduced. For example the separation of waters from thew land on the planet, it didn't produce great heat at the time, that didn't cool in days.

The sun uses nuclear fusion, which is a totally different concept from radioactive decay. If rust will not corrupt, how will we breathe? Iron rusts because of oxidation. Hemoglobin contains iron, which (because of oxidation) enables the red blood cells to transfer oxygen to various parts of the body.

If we breathed as now, how would we fly up to New Jersualem and back???? Or to the ends of the universe, and beyond?? Besides, we will have no blood! Not as far as I understand the bible.

The way the sun now works, would lead to it fizzling out, or whatever you want to call it, in some billions of years. That won't happen. No more than decay.

I really think you are seriously confused. Let me ask it again...
So why, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, do we find rock older than 4500 years? You would think the oldest rocks we find would only be ~4500 years old. Can you explain why our "present state" science shows them to be older?

Yes. Ever heard of parent daughter? That is a present state relation. A temporal state family. The eternal state would see the materials now in a daughter, or parent role, otherwise employed. Get it??

It doesn't say anything about super fast growth. It may have been kept secret from you, but it is possible to plant mature plants in a garden.

False. The creation week was 6 days. The garden was planted and grew, in that time frame. Also, Noah confirms it.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

^I guess God grew animals from seed too?

No. Neither was man made from a seed. This is news?

When was the flood? Does the Bible say exactly when the flood happened?

About 4500 plus years ago.

So did God curse the entire earth or not? You claim he did, then you claim he didn't.

The entire surface of the planet. Not the core, or interior, far as we know.

Algae are technically plants (protists more closely allied with plants). In our "present state" algal blooms cause massive dieoffs in fish populations because the decay of the algae suck all of the dissolved oxygen out of the water. If God cursed creation after original sin, would the effect be the same? Why would the curse before the "split" be less harsh than what we are cursed with now?

The balance of nature and life, and life processes are different now. I see no reason to hold algae to present ways. You?

 

[gipsy]

While I still think your hypothesis is very funny but in the end absolutely meaningless, I find it very rude of you to completely disrespect civilizations which are fairly accurately dated back far beyond your magical ~4.500 years.
For example Egypt, Sumer, Aborigines, etc.
Who are you to dismiss their history?

 

[marktheblake]

Who are you to dismiss their history?

who are you to dismiss the Israelites History?

 

[gipsy]

who are you to dismiss the Israelites History?

I absolutely don't dismiss their history!, I just take "events" like the flood as exactly what they are = myth (or perhaps in some cases very locally defined events).
In the "real" history of the israelites you won't find the flood mentioned as literal fact. See for example:
sorry just checked that I can't post links ... just search google for "isreal[ites] history" ...

 

[dad]

While I still think your hypothesis is very funny but in the end absolutely meaningless, I find it very rude of you to completely disrespect civilizations which are fairly accurately dated back far beyond your magical ~4.500 years.
For example Egypt, Sumer, Aborigines, etc.
Who are you to dismiss their history?

You obviously have a wrong number here. I dismiss nothing in the way of civilizations?? I simply correct the mistaken popular misconceptions on the dates. I look at the basis for them.

Show me one civilization that was pre flood, and the proof. Try to avoid so called decay dating.

I think it is rude to not bother learning what is actually said and meant, and tossing out weird accusations.

 

[gipsy]

You obviously have a wrong number here. I dismiss nothing in the way of civilizations?? I simply correct the mistaken popular misconceptions on the dates. I look at the basis for them.

Show me one civilization that was pre flood, and the proof. Try to avoid so called decay dating.

I think it is rude to not bother learning what is actually said and meant, and tossing out weird accusations.

I'm sure you can first proof to us when "the Flood" happened?!
If you manage to do this, you could for example take a look at the "Sumerian King List" or at a list of egyptian pharaohs ... perhaps you could learn there "what is actually said" ... these lists are not "decay dated" but originaly written, just like your own book but they are (at least until about 2500 to 3000 BC) backed up by archeological findings.

I'm sure you'll answer with another meaningless quote like "but this is all based on current state science" ... perhaps you'd have another idea sometimes?
If not, then begin by proofing that the world was not poofed into existance 5 minutes ago ...

 

[Alunyel]

If there was a global flood 4500 years ago, then we would not expect to see trees older than 4500 years, correct?

Trees can't survive under water.

Why are there trees in Sweden that are over 8000 years old?

If, as you claim, Earth is 6000 years old, then were these 8000 year old trees just floating through space, or something, for 2000 years?

 

[dad]

I'm sure you can first proof to us when "the Flood" happened?!

What do you accept as proof, since science hasn't been up to the task? But wait...why would anyone need to prove the flood happened?? Is that the thread topic?

If you manage to do this, you could for example take a look at the "Sumerian King List" or at a list of egyptian pharaohs ... perhaps you could learn there "what is actually said" ...

OK, I am somewhat familiar with them. Now, what about them, precisely is it you think somehow supports whatever point it is you think you are trying to make?? Do tell.

these lists are not "decay dated" but originaly written, just like your own book but they are (at least until about 2500 to 3000 BC) backed up by archeological findings.

Oh really now?? Great. Show us these findings. We can do this thing without the decay dream dating. I'm game.

I'm sure you'll answer with another meaningless quote like "but this is all based on current state science" ... perhaps you'd have another idea sometimes?
If not, then begin by proofing that the world was not poofed into existance 5 minutes ago ...

No. I answer with, show us the findings that date so we can look at your claims. Really. See how reasonable I can be?

 

[dad]

If there was a global flood 4500 years ago, then we would not expect to see trees older than 4500 years, correct?

Trees can't survive under water.

Why are there trees in Sweden that are over 8000 years old?

There are not. Not in any way can that be evidenced. Try it, and see. I kid you not. Show us how the root system dating (or whatever) works! It's showtime.

If, as you claim, Earth is 6000 years old, then were these 8000 year old trees just floating through space, or something, for 2000 years?

They float nowhere in this universe but in your dreams. Show us the dating used, and basis. I'm up for a laugh.

 

[marktheblake]

Why are there trees in Sweden that are over 8000 years old?

I do not know, could you perhaps update Wikipedia with this new information?
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I think it is rude to not bother learning what is actually said and meant, and tossing out weird accusations.

Just when I replace the fuse in my "iron-O-meter", I come across this little gem from dad.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I do not know, could you perhaps update Wikipedia with this new information?
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I provided the article about 8000 year old root systems, so, you... could... update... it??

 

[BananaSlug]

Because creation was 6000 plus years ago. Things are older than 4500 years old. But you do not find them by radioactive dating. No alteration in the laws of physics occurred. What about that are you missing? The present laws would be what came to exist as the original state was changed, NOT our state.

You are becoming more and more confusing. No radioactive decay =/= "no alteration in the laws of physics". The present laws came to be when the past state was changed to the present state. This means that (according to you) radioactive decay did not occur until this change. If radioactive decay did not occur until ~4400ya, then anything we date using "present" decay would be no older than 4400 years.

Does anybody else understand what I am saying or is it really that hard?

Try to comprehend, I am making it easy for you here. No change IN the present laws. Get it?

Yes I know that. You are saying there was a change from the past laws to the present. Here is my question, yet again:

You have claimed there is no physical evidence in support of the "different state" past. If there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

Am I the only one who is noticing he never answers my questions?

No, it would not stand to reason, unless there was this same decay, and state we see now. Was there? Prove it.

I'll ask it again because obviously you continually fail to understand the question.

So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist in the past state, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence in our current state. Can you explain this?

The biggest difference is the separation of the spiritual. The ancient records ooze with spiritual beings existing right here among men. There is also the flood accounts, and long lifespans.

What "seperation of the spiritual"? All ancient records "ooze" with accounts of spiritual beings because that is what ancient people believed in (with help from psychoactive plants/fungi). I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence.

The Rig Veda has accounts of astronomical events that place the Rig Veda to around 5,000 years. Maybe someone else who doesn't have such a big plate could expound on that (my current posts are getting quite long).

No. Thatt is a theory, based on a lot of same state assumptions. The dinos went extinct, because this planet wasn't made for them.

So I guess the earth wasn't as "good" as God claimed it was?

Dinos likely were evolved from birds, and maybe reptiles, etc. The exit from Eden saw a need to be able to evolve, because this planet was not suitable for life. At least not the majority of Eden's creatures. I can prove that, by the way, if you doubt. With science.

PROVE IT. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

That depends. On the instance, and location.

Why does it depend on the location? We know that pillow lava forms underwater. Can you provide any evidence as to why we should assume the pillow lava of the "past state" was formed differently compared to pillow lave of this "present state"?

False, obviously. The creation was already here. How would the onset of this present state be expected to mean that rocks only started to exist then???? Absurd. You cannot test rock for actual age. Your so called dating is 100% same state past religion, and meanigless to actual time.

^By the above statement concerning my past post:

If radioactive decay did not exist until around 4400 years ago, we shouldn't find any rocks that are older than 4400 years. If all the rock we tested was only 4400 years old, then that would be support for your scenario. However we find rock older than 4400 years. Why do we find rock older than 4400 years if decay didn't exist until 4400 years ago?

This proves to me that you really have no clue what I am trying to explain to you. According to YOU, radioactive decay did not exist until the "past state" changed to our "present state". According to YOU, this "change" happened around 4400 years ago. If radioactive decay did not exist until 4400 years ago, we shouldn't find any rocks over 4400 years old. The 4400 year mark wouldn't be the actual age of the rock, but the age when radioactive decay came into existence.

Utter nonsense. That is hand waving, and using dreamed up same state past conditions and events, etc to try to explain all things. No, it was not the orbit that changed the climate, that is an old wive's tale. I dare you to prove it, I guarantee it is a lie.

He used math, the same concept that Dodwell used. If Milankovitch's math is a lie, then what makes Dodwells method any different?

False!!! That is nothing more than present state based dreaming.

Can to provide evidence that falsifies it? Questioning evidence is not the same as providing your own (which you have yet to do).

All I can agree with is the decrease bit. The rest is religion. Try to provide details, and basis for your claims, and I will slice it to smithereens, if you like. It is simply nonsense.

The Milankovitch Theory
Here you go, pick what you want to "slice to smithereens".

I know. But it is reasonable to assume that the briars and etc were evolved plants of some kind. Just as mosquitoes never used to suck blood, or bees sting.

If bees never stung, then wouldn't God giving them the ability to sting break him resting from creation? Bee venom has a specific protein that attacks nerve cells. Besides, can you give a specific verse that says bees did not sting before the fall?

Oh, yes. All sorts of things can be deduced. For example the separation of waters from thew land on the planet, it didn't produce great heat at the time, that didn't cool in days.

That has nothing to do with radioactive decay. Can you give a specific verse that says radioactive decay did not exist? I don't want "deductions" that are based on a fallible human's interpretation. I want a specific verse.

If we breathed as now, how would we fly up to New Jersualem and back???? Or to the ends of the universe, and beyond?? Besides, we will have no blood! Not as far as I understand the bible.

Are you doubting God's power? Why would God have to radically change the way our bodies work to fly us to the New Jerusalem? Is he not strong enough to keep us alive? Could you please provide the verses that state we will not have blood?

Yes. Ever heard of parent daughter? That is a present state relation. A temporal state family. The eternal state would see the materials now in a daughter, or parent role, otherwise employed. Get it??

But if there was no radioactive decay then there wouldn't have been any daughter isotopes. Daughter isotopes are a product of decay. The daughter isotopes did not start appearing until radioactive decay came into existence (~4400 years ago).

No. Neither was man made from a seed. This is news?

No. "Let the earth bring forth," is the same language God used to create the land animals as he used for plants. Obviously he grew animals from seeds as well, unless you would like to explain why the exact same statement means two different things.

About 4500 plus years ago.

Please provide the Bible verse that makes such an obvious statement.

The entire surface of the planet. Not the core, or interior, far as we know.

Perhaps you forget your contradictions. I will gladly remind you.

<B>

First of all, death as far as I understand it applied to Eden's creatures. Not all life on earth, or in Eden. How algae worked then, I don't know. Why? Who cares? Point?
​

</B>He cursed the entire surface of the earth, the ground. And the plants, etc.

The balance of nature and life, and life processes are different now. I see no reason to hold algae to present ways. You?

So was there death or was there not? If there was death then algae would act the same way in the past as now. Death is death.

 

[dad]

You are becoming more and more confusing. No radioactive decay =/= "no alteration in the laws of physics". The present laws came to be when the past state was changed to the present state. This means that (according to you) radioactive decay did not occur until this change. If radioactive decay did not occur until ~4400ya, then anything we date using "present" decay would be no older than 4400 years.

Not in any way is that remotely close to being true. Look into how radioactive decay 'dating' works. It is measured by daughter and parent isotopes, and decay rates, etc.

Does anybody else understand what I am saying or is it really that hard?

It might help if you did first.

Yes I know that. You are saying there was a change from the past laws to the present. Here is my question, yet again:

You have claimed there is no physical evidence in support of the "different state" past. If there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

Because, conversely, there is no physical evidence in support of the "same state" past. If there is no physical evidence for physical only laws in the past, why assume so?

I'll ask it again because obviously you continually fail to understand the question.

So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist in the past state, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence in our current state. Can you explain this?

You would first need to comprehend the basis of decay dating. What exactly leads you to believe that a present decay state was in effect pre flood?? If it wasn't. then we simply need to rethink what a parent and daughter are, or rather, were. The only way dating works, is by assuming that all the daughter got here by decay, as it does NOW get here. What if it were here already at the start of the present decay state? That would mean that all decay methods are invalid. Null and void. Therefore, unless you first prove there was a same state, assuming there was one for dating is a foolish endeavor.

What "seperation of the spiritual"? All ancient records "ooze" with accounts of spiritual beings because that is what ancient people believed in (with help from psychoactive plants/fungi). I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence.

Says you. How would you know why they recorded spirit beings? You are stabbing in the dark. What if they were very real? How would you know. Your approach is ignorant, and presumptuous.

The Rig Veda has accounts of astronomical events that place the Rig Veda to around 5,000 years. Maybe someone else who doesn't have such a big plate could expound on that (my current posts are getting quite long).

Show us! I don't believe you. They may record events, the 5000 year bit is what I don't accept.

So I guess the earth wasn't as "good" as God claimed it was?[/quoote] It was great in creation week. There was no fallen man, or curse, or flood, or split then.

Why does it depend on the location? We know that pillow lava forms underwater. Can you provide any evidence as to why we should assume the pillow lava of the "past state" was formed differently compared to pillow lave of this "present state"?

Well, why would I need to!? Unless there was some location you had in mind where it mattered.

This proves to me that you really have no clue what I am trying to explain to you. According to YOU, radioactive decay did not exist until the "past state" changed to our "present state". According to YOU, this "change" happened around 4400 years ago. If radioactive decay did not exist until 4400 years ago, we shouldn't find any rocks over 4400 years old. The 4400 year mark wouldn't be the actual age of the rock, but the age when radioactive decay came into existence.

No offense, but your missing the point is comical. Show me one rock older! Is that so hard? Then, show us how you think you know it is older.

He used math, the same concept that Dodwell used. If Milankovitch's math is a lie, then what makes Dodwells method any different?

Look at the basis. Care to put on the table the basis for Milankovitch's claims? Or do you even know?

Can to provide evidence that falsifies it? Questioning evidence is not the same as providing your own (which you have yet to do).

A same state past is unfalsifialbe. If not, falsify it for us!

The Milankovitch Theory
Here you go, pick what you want to "slice to smithereens".

Is it just me? The link didn't work. So, tell us in your own words, and pick out a point or two from your link. Here is one I will pick out.

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Milankovitch theory is an explanation of long term climate change. Milankovitch built his theory from previous work done by J.A. Adhemar and James Croll. In 1842 Adhemar explained glacial climate using only precession (Davis, 2002).[/FONT]"

So, the whole concept is to try to explain the glacial record, by assuming that the present rotation, and etc were in effects in the deep past! Prove a same state past, and you have a point. Until then, it is foolish dreams.

If bees never stung, then wouldn't God giving them the ability to sting break him resting from creation? Bee venom has a specific protein that attacks nerve cells. Besides, can you give a specific verse that says bees did not sting before the fall?

Things likely evolved as they needed to live on a curswed surface of the earth. We know that asps will not be poison or dangerous in the new state. So why would bees? Nothing will hurt or destry. Do bee stings hurt? !

That has nothing to do with radioactive decay. Can you give a specific verse that says radioactive decay did not exist? I don't want "deductions" that are based on a fallible human's interpretation. I want a specific verse.

The present state reactions that include such things as electron transfer result in rust. Yet, the new state will not see rust corrupt as now. Any more questions?!

Are you doubting God's power? Why would God have to radically change the way our bodies work to fly us to the New Jerusalem? Is he not strong enough to keep us alive? Could you please provide the verses that state we will not have blood?

Sure, The prime example of our new body is Jesus, after He arose from the dead. He talked about flesh and bone, but NO BLOOD! And His was the eternal body! His new body flew as well. That does not mean God was not strong enough to fly Him away from earth with an old body!

But if there was no radioactive decay then there wouldn't have been any daughter isotopes. Daughter isotopes are a product of decay. The daughter isotopes did not start appearing until radioactive decay came into existence (~4400 years ago).

Ha!!! Now you are starting to clue in. False!!! Daughter isotopes were already here. But they were not involved in the decay process.

No. "Let the earth bring forth," is the same language God used to create the land animals as he used for plants. Obviously he grew animals from seeds as well, unless you would like to explain why the exact same statement means two different things.

The plants later were explained to have been planted. The man was formed from the dust. The animals also, were not planted.

Please provide the Bible verse that makes such an obvious statement.

The sons of Noah, and on down to Abraham, etc. The years are given, to within a small degree of possible interpretation.

So was there death or was there not? If there was death then algae would act the same way in the past as now. Death is death.

Yes, but not all creatures and things were made to be eternal. Some were apparently made for a purpose. Such as the purpose of making the earth habitable one day. Not all the planet was in Eden. Or the sea of Eden.

 

[marktheblake]

I provided the article about 8000 year old root systems, so, you... could... update... it??

There are plenty of fanatics desperate enough to hammer another nail in the coffin of the Creationist theology, I am sure that one of them will update it soon enough.

I guess the root systems article must be a very new discovery in the last few days or so.

 

[dad]

There are plenty of fanatics desperate enough to hammer another nail in the coffin of the Creationist theology, I am sure that one of them will update it soon enough.

I guess the root systems article must be a very new discovery in the last few days or so.

 

[corvus_corax]

I guess the root systems article must be a very new discovery in the last few days or so.

Actually it's over a year old (take a look)

 

[dad]

Actually it's over a year old (take a look)

The 'dating' rests on what? Let's take a look.


"The tree now growing above the finding place and the wood pieces dating 9,550 years have the same genetic material."

(your link)

Now, all we need to do is look how the wood pieces were dated!! Need I say more? Would that be decay dating, by chance? Illuminate us.

 

[marktheblake]

Actually it's over a
year old (take a look)

Would seem that not everyone is convinced about the age of these trees then.