This doesn't seem to leave much room for looking through the window that science has opened to us into the world of how God Creates.AV1611VET said:
.
Upvote
0
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.
This doesn't seem to leave much room for looking through the window that science has opened to us into the world of how God Creates.AV1611VET said:Ya --- if it disagrees with the 1611 KJV --- it's wrong.
Was your claim false before, now or both times? certainly, if the Universe was created with an apparent age for the sake of A&E, then the redshift that shows the age of the universe as many billions of years would be necessary for A&E, not for us. So now you are saying that it WASN'T necessary for A&E, yet it is part of what would ahve been created as an apparently aged universe. That directly shows your original claim to be false. Secondly, the red-shift shows the universe ot be very old and thus CONTRADICT the Bible if you choose to read Genesis 1 literally. So your second claim is outright false as well.AV1611VET said:That red-shift did nothing for Adam and Eve, but it does for us. It's testimony that the Bible is true.
God put the plan of salvation in the stars - [/quote 14 bill years ago, like the red-shift shows us.
No, I can't say that I ever wondered about this. What does this have to do with the red-shift?(Psalm 19). Ever wonder why it went dark from 12:00 - 3:00 when Jesus was crucified? There, just above the cross, was Aries --- the Lamb of God, Slain from the Foundation of the World.
Ah, an ad hominem. What delightful evidence that you ran out of knowledge to argue back with.I would too if I had a signature like yours.
Frumious Bandersnatch said:As far as I can tell you are not a YEC so why are you continually trying to move YEC flood geology threads off topic? Wait, don't even answer. The question for this thread is whether any believer in a recent global flood that covered the entire earth at the same time about 5,000 years ago can explain the data in the OP and the data linked in post 10 and those presented in post 20.
[/quote]AV1611 said:Fine --- I'll take my expersise elsewhere.
[quote="Baggins]You have expertise. What in? pray tell
Bump again.Frumious Bandersnatch said:Bumped because the data in the OP and other posts of this thread provide clear and unrefuted evidence that geological and physical processes operating today have operated for at least the last 50,000 years with no interruption by a global flood. The YECs here have been really quiet on this one.
Pre flood.jwu said:For the flood, yes - because lake suigetsu has 40,000 annual varves without being disturbed by a global flood.
C14 dating is not good too far back.So the typical creationist response is that they formed faster than that. However, a correlation with C14 dating can be seen in the above graph.
Pretty close there.Of course, creationists don't accept C14 dating either., at least when it comes to things as old or older than the supposed flood.
Can you name an example of one or two objects from recorded history that are beyond the time of the flood? Also, let us know exactly how the dates are arrived at. precisely.Since there are also objects whose age is known from recorded history which give nice results when one dates them with C14 and which basically creationists have to accept as well, this leaves only a very small range of time in which the rest could have formed.
This applies only to flood geology creationists. I see most things in the record as pre flood. But yes, the present decaying, we measure cannot be extended to the far past, unless we show that things then decayed as well. I haven't seen anyone do that yet.E.g. if C14 dating is accepted by creationists to be good for things up to 4000 years old, then this means that the first 4000 varves really are annual ones and 36,000 varves must have formed within 400 years, while at the same time mysterious events affected C14 dating to the same degree.
dad said:Sorry but the varves are still being laid down in the present. There is no break in the sequence showing either a global flood or any change in the laws of physics. Look at the OP and some of the other posts again. Preflood won't get you out of this one. Though I suppose one could say they are preflood since there has never yet been a global flood.Pre flood.
Right. It only works back to about 45,000 years with calibration. After that it doesn't work too well. The point is that it can be calibrated and multiple methods of calibration agree for time well before the supposed global flood is supposed to have occured.C14 dating is not good too far back.
What you have in Lake Suigetsu and in some other lakes is a continous record of varves laid down from the present and extending back 40,000 or so years. The 14C in the varves happens to correlate with 14C in tree ring chronologies back to 11,000 years and with coral couplets and ice cores recording climate back for thousands or years before this supposed global flood is supposed to have occured. The data show a uniformity of process going back long before your supposed split with absolutely no evidence of this imagined split.This applies only to flood geology creationists. I see most things in the record as pre flood. But yes, the present decaying, we measure cannot be extended to the far past, unless we show that things then decayed as well. I haven't seen anyone do that yet.
Just because varves are still laid down as they are now laid down, does not mean they were always laid down that way. Like tree rings, they simply now continue to grow, but at a different rate than in the past. Neither varves, nor tree rings are such that some change other than the amount of time it takes, and the way they are formed. Can you outline how they were formed in the different past, and now? No. So why presume to tell us we should look for some break? It certainly looks like the transition was pretty smooth.Frumious Bandersnatch said:Sorry but the varves are still being laid down in the present. There is no break in the sequence showing either a global flood or any change in the laws of physics. Look at the OP and some of the other posts again. Preflood won't get you out of this one. Though I suppose one could say they are preflood since there has never yet been a global flood.
No it only works to about 1/10 of that! After that, the assumptions you still ride on do not exist! But you don't know that, cause all you can see is the starting point of the assumptions, the fishbowl of the present. The same with the so called calibrations, all calibrated to the same decaying present, and all out to lunch. Where's that at?Right. It only works back to about 45,000 years with calibration. After that it doesn't work too well. The point is that it can be calibrated and multiple methods of calibration agree for time well before the supposed global flood is supposed to have occured.
No, it only is 40,000 years if it was as the present, one a year! If it was like the past, why your time estimates are worthless. Unless you can prove the past is the same, you just do not have a case. Corals can, I think, use phtosynthesis as well as feeding. The light in the past, if you remember was different, so all bets there are off as well with coral growth.What you have in Lake Suigetsu and in some other lakes is a continous record of varves laid down from the present and extending back 40,000 or so years. The 14C in the varves happens to correlate with 14C in tree ring chronologies back to 11,000 years and with coral couplets and ice cores recording climate back for thousands or years before this supposed global flood is supposed to have occured.
No, and saying it won't help your lack of a case.The data show a uniformity of process going back long before your supposed split with absolutely no evidence of this imagined split.
Have they found these trees growing in a varve covered area, through the varves?I_Love_Cheese said:Its Thursday so there is no point in responding to dad but I have a question to add to the discussion. On the OT board and elsewhere I have seen the idea of Polystrate Fossils coming up as an argument for the flood. These seem to be defined as fossils that cut through multiple strata. The only evidence I can find are trees that have been growing in swamps and are quickly buried but several are questioning whether they exist in varve environments. Am I correct in concluding that these are probably another red herring. It seems that the argument is that polystrate fossils exist and so they must also exist in places like the Green River and thus a flood.
Any comments?
They are all correlated with the present! The past was different. Look at all evidence on it's own merits, and nothing can enter the glorious past as science, but the correlated with the present crowd are left together, in the fishbowl. Not that remarkable, really.Pete Harcoff said:So have YECs ever explained why there is remarkable correlation between independent dating methods (radiometric and non-radiometric)? I see some attempts to dismiss them, but no one ever explains the correlation. Odd, that.
They correlate in the present and smoothly back to the past. The varves/tree ring 14C correlation goes back 11,000 years with no indication of a global flood or change in the laws of physics and the 14C in the varves continues to decline in an annual fashion. I pointed this out before but the thread got wiped out. The varves, tree rings, coral couplets all correlate to falsify your "model".dad said:They are all correlated with the present! The past was different. Look at all evidence on it's own merits, and nothing can enter the glorious past as science, but the correlated with the present crowd are left together, in the fishbowl. Not that remarkable, really.
Frumious Bandersnatch said:They correlate in the present and smoothly back to the past.
Glad to hear that, can the Almighty conduct a smooth split process, or what!?
Stop right there. No, it does not go back any 11000 years at all!!!!! Might as well say it goes back fifty trillion years. An example here is tree rings. 4400 years ago, some trees must have had about 6600 rings on them already. That is all that means, and that means nothing when a tree could then grow in a week! Think about it.The varves/tree ring 14C correlation goes back 11,000 years with no indication of a global flood or change in the laws of physics and the 14C in the varves continues to decline in an annual fashion.
No, in no way do they do any such thing.I pointed this out before but the thread got wiped out. The varves, tree rings, coral couplets all correlate to falsify your "model".
Hey, piece of cake! We are still talking about varves on another thread, but that is a similar story to tree rings. I just covered those here.In your fantasy the flood was 4,500 years ago and then "normal" laws of physics began about 100 years after the flood and the "Time of Peleg. So for at least the last 4,350 years we have normal laws of physics and normal process. Let's give your fantasy laws about 150 years post flood.
There are 45,000 varves and at least 11,000 tree rings that have to be accounted for.
No, one ring or so per year as we observe after the split. The rest were there before the split already, having grown at the different rates.That means you need to form about 44 tree rings per year with the exact cellular structure of annual tree rings and with declining 14C in each ring that continues to look annual.
less than on a day? Child's play. And seeing a pattern of decreasing 14c is no surprise.You also need 271 varves to form each year that look exactly like the varve that are forming today and with 14C declining to look annual.
Seems pretty simple, pre split there was a pattern of less 14C. This is all starting to fit like a glove here.But there is a bigger problem here. The first 6650 of the varves have annual 14C decreases that correlate with the extra tree rings which are supposedly formed during the entire post flood fantasy period correlate with the varves formed during the last 16% of the post flood fantasy period. How does that work?
The different past was universal, acroos the board, and corals ought to reflect that. You say they do!! Great, the evidence mounts.How is it that the fast forming varves 8,000-15,000 also have 14C levels that can be correlated to 14C and U-Th dating of coral couplets? How is it that they also correlate with ice cores and marine deposits?
No, the uniformity only goes to the split. End of story. At least end of the present story. There was still a story back then, howbeit, a different story. You cannot move any chess pieces into that past. Your sad little story ends at the far reaches of the fishbowl. I kid you not.These observations all show a uniformity of process from the present going back to at least several thousand years before your supposed global flood and falsify your split fantasy. End of story. Check and Mate.
dad said:A process that is undectable in any way.Glad to hear that, can the Almighty conduct a smooth split process, or what!?
Think about the correlation between the 14C in tree rings and the lake varves. You claim the lake varves formed about 1 a day but the tree gre in a week. Why do both tree rings and lake varves have decreasing levels of 14C (from a time when you claim there was no radioactive decay) that make each appear to have formed annually and at the same rate? The coral couplets and ice cores also agree and appear to have formed at the same rate as the tree rings and lake varves by 14C correlation, even though in your fantasy you need to form very different numbers of these things between the flood and the split. This alone is enough to falsify your bizarre fantasy totally. You have lost. End of story. All the handwaving you do on the rest of your last post and all you will do in future posts won't help a bit.Stop right there. No, it does not go back any 11000 years at all!!!!! Might as well say it goes back fifty trillion years. An example here is tree rings. 4400 years ago, some trees must have had about 6600 rings on them already. That is all that means, and that means nothing when a tree could then grow in a week! Think about it.
F.B.
dad said:Stop right there. No, it does not go back any 11000 years at all!!!!! Might as well say it goes back fifty trillion years. An example here is tree rings. 4400 years ago, some trees must have had about 6600 rings on them already. That is all that means, and that means nothing when a tree could then grow in a week! Think about it.
No, one ring or so per year as we observe after the split. The rest were there before the split already, having grown at the different rates.
No, right!!Adriac said:Wrong!
What we find is that the composition of a tree's growth varies due to climactic changes. During the "spring", when a tree's growth is fastest, the wood made is less dense. As the year wears on into the "summer", the growth slows down, resulting in denser wood, and so on. They are not simply created by the tree as it grows.
So what? Are you suggesting that a day in the presplit world was uniform? No wetter periods? Get serious. Just replace the summer and winter bits with weeks, days, or even parts of the day.
Wrong, the entire micro climate may have been on a different scale, as I just brought out. Nothing then, to do with seasons. In it's present slowness, it corresponds to seasons, yes, of course. Look at a day for example, cool of the morning, cool of the evening, heat of the day, and other parts of the day. In the pre flood world also, we apparently had a time of day when the waters came up, and watered plants, unlike now as well. Need moisture in a day? You got it. There also apparently may have been a windy part of the day, drying things out. Need dry? You got it.In order to argue that tree rings were created faster than once per year, you would need to say that the entire seasonal climate cycle was faster.
Trees did grow very very fast then.
dad said:No, right!!
So what? Are you suggesting that a day in the presplit world was uniform? No wetter periods? Get serious. Just replace the summer and winter bits with weeks, days, or even parts of the day.
Still doesn't work. It takes an entire winter to create the dark ring for hibernation. Of course, the leprechauns could have done it before the pre-Ireland days.
Too wet and the roots will rot. Another problem. You also need an entire summer of warm weather to get the same thickness. If you need a midget named Tatoo I might be able to help you with life on your island.
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?