If you ever get pics of rings more than 5000 years I guess we can check your theory.
What about checking your theory?
People lived through the change as did trees. You need to support a claim people or trees would look different all of a sudden.
People don't have rings or sth. I didn't say trees looked different all of a sudden. They grew different, according to your claim. This different grow should effect rings, which are produced in growing.
I do not toss out historical records or Scripture.
You toss out Dan 8:14.
Science does! ..., they just do not know!
Nor do you. Scripture does not speak of different nature.
Science has no eyes for anything but the little physical only natural criteria they accept! They are blind as well as ignorant.
This "ignorance" has got much knowledge, as can be seen in the technology that derived from it. The criteria of science were derived from a belief in a rational God, i.e. the Christian God as opposed to the God of Islam, who has no faithfulness a man can reckon on, but is totally incomprehensible by man. Hence, even the most pious Muslim cannot be sure whether he will enter paradise. Other concepts opposed to this approach to science are of course the irrationlity of Buddhism (especially Zen-Buddhism).
Not after the flood.
Any Scriptural evidence you brought forth for it was not on fast growing, but on fertility: producing more fruit than usual by now.
and a sudden change in the way life was
??? First time you mention this.
Also, the flood events require more than the natural world we know today! The rain to cover a planet falling fro heaven would produce killing heat in this nature due to friction.
Part of the water came from below ...
The waters could not suddenly disappear from a planet that was submerged in our natural world! The animals could not get from the all all over the world with the nature and oceans we now have. Animals could not evolve from vegetarians to meat eaters suddenly in out nature!
Our discussion started with you claiming a change in nature after the flood, in the time of the
Babel tower.
That is one area of the bible that agrees with a 360 day year.
I can't see any connection of the two. What has an decrease in month length of about 1.6% and an increase in year length of about 1.4% to do with growth times (how long it takes to produce a ring of equal size, et
c.) rising by more than 36000%?
Bible tells us, how the 30 day for a month must be interpreted, in Dan 8:14. There is no indication scripture that it should be otherwise elsewhere in Scripture.
2.Chr 4:2 PI=30/10.
Show me grass growing on mountain tops in a few months?
Depending on the mountain, you may find grass or trees at the top.
When the dove returned it had evidence of fresh trees growing.
Of fresh twigs, as to tree, it is your conjecture.
We do not go by what you blindly suppose. The waters for the flood were from above the firmament, because that is where waters above were! That means beyond the stars!
Ah, you want to tell me, there was a firmament stretched out like a tent plane or flat as a piece of metal hammered to a plate (these analogies is taken from the Hebrew etymology), and well, according to Job 37:18 this firmament still existed in Job's time. There is no such firmament by now. So when did that natural change came about, it evidently was after Job's time, who lived in a time when different people lives on earth, i.e. after the Babel tower.
I think there is a serious flaw in the way you interpret what the Bible say about the firmament.
With founts of the deep erupting and windows of heaven transporting waters from beyond stars, the earth could fill up fast!
Could, the Bible speaks of 40 days and 150 days ... why should I speculate it was otherwise?
The usual estimates for when Abraham lived and Jewish records do not support your attempted obfuscation.
You lost me. I did not doubt the dating of Abraham, I pointed out that the time span between Peleg and Abraham is not know. So whole we can calculate the time of Abraham, we don't know when Peleg etc. lived.
My estimate in Abraham's time is based on 1Ki 6:1 and Ex 12:40, the latter remark interpreted in a way based on Gal 3:17 (and some borrowing from Hebrew way of thinking). You may take the 430 years as the time between Jacob entering Egypt and the Exodus, this would place Abraham somewhat earlier, that's no matter we should quarrel about.
We disagree about the time Peleg lived, you obfuscate it by speaking as it if were a matter when Abraham lived.
It was not history they did not know.
They knew it from Scripture, like we now know about. Any additional "knowledge" is dubious, as we can see from "knowledge" that is proven to be wrong.
Utter rubbish. People abandoning a project because of a sudden change in how everyone spoke has zero to do with your scenario.
What scenario? I explained that speaking another language is no difference in nature. So "my scenario" is that they suddenly spoke a totally different language. Which does not mean their nature changed.
Total imagination. It was not one isolated miracle we are talking about.
A healing of a million people at once would be no change in nature, whether it is isolated or mass phenomena is no difference in the nature of the event. It either changes some aspects by direspecting "natural laws", but leaves "natural laws" as they are untouched, or it changes nature itself. The diffusion of language did not change the nature of human linguistics, only the sort of linguistics.
Kangaroos on a log in the ocean eh. Ridiculous.
You are right, it is ridiculous to think of kangaroos on a log, when Kangaroos can swim, and when there was a land bridge they could walk to Australia.
OK, so because there is some mystery surrounding missing footprints, you gave up on believing God created it all. Right.
There is no mystery about it. They were
misinterpreted (some footprints eroded to dinosaur tracks after some times), and there was
fraud (some footprints were carved by an artist, and in a movie on Glen Rose sand was used to improve some tracks to be unmistakably human). And this is only the most blatant example how creationists said something that was simply wrong, because they are either naive or dishonest.
You cannot say they were real. Got it.
Nor can I say they were not real. Got it?
