The Earth is young

[mindlight]

Tree ring dating goes back to 1200 years alone. You have to stop believing in tree rings to hold that view.

Tree rings can date trees directly to about 5000 years implying that certain lucky rare trees survived the flood. But beyond that there are speculations based on scattered samples of dead or fossilised wood which are not that conclusive. In certain special conditions multiple rings can form in single years. There is no real bench mark to measure how tree rings formed in the pre flood world or in the aftermath of the flood.

 

[The Barbarian]

1) a uniform rate of growth backtracked over a period of time for which we have no observations and no audit trail.

"Maybe coral can grow hundreds of times faster, although there's no evidence for that, or for the huge increase in nutrients and energy required for such a thing." It's testable, but of course no one is foolish enough to try it.

2) That coral does not grow faster in certain special conditions.

It's testable. Why do you suppose creationists are unwilling to test their beliefs on this?

3) That coral was not just created in place and somehow survived the flood.

There's lay after layer of coral each on top of the next. So you're asking me if God might have faked the evidence to fool us. Since God is truth, we can reject that as well.

 

[mindlight]

"Maybe coral can grow hundreds of times faster, although there's no evidence for that, or for the huge increase in nutrients and energy required for such a thing." It's testable, but of course no one is foolish enough to try it.

Faster rates of growth are possible in a variety of conditions some of which are testable and some of which may have been unique to the pre- post flood world. In short no one knows.

It's testable. Why do you suppose creationists are unwilling to test their beliefs on this?

Such work does not have to be creationist specific. We know that pollution, temperature changes outside the ideal range or the strip mining of fish that clean the reefs of algae can all have an effect on rates of growth. If the rate can change our speculations about age are moot.

There's lay after layer of coral each on top of the next. So you're asking me if God might have faked the evidence to fool us. Since God is truth, we can reject that as well.

Why is it a lie if the top layers follow the same design as the bottom ones? Surely it is God that gets to say whose lying rather some scientist who is only guessing anyway

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Maybe coral can grow hundreds of times faster, although there's no evidence for that, or for the huge increase in nutrients and energy required for such a thing." It's testable, but of course no one is foolish enough to try it.

Faster rates of growth are possible in a variety of conditions some of which are testable and some of which may have been unique to the pre- post flood world. In short no one knows.

If you can show that any coral can grow hundreds of times the normal rate, you'll have an argument.

It's testable. Why do you suppose creationists are unwilling to test their beliefs on this?

Such work does not have to be creationist specific. We know that pollution, temperature changes outside the ideal range or the strip mining of fish that clean the reefs of algae can all have an effect on rates of growth.

If you can document that anything like hundreds of times faster is possible, you have an argument. Remember, hundreds of thousands of years is a very conservative estimate. It assumes that the coral was always growing at close to optimum conditions, that the sinking of the volcano was always exactly the maximum rate of coral growth possible, and there had never been any periods of coral loss over that tiem.

If the rate can change our speculations about age are moot.

Nope. No one would actually argue that you can make reef coral grow hundreds of times faster than the normal rate.

There's layer after layer of coral each on top of the next. So you're asking me if God might have faked the evidence to fool us. Since God is truth, we can reject that as well.

Why is it a lie if the top layers follow the same design as the bottom ones?

Because if you argue that "God created it that way", there are countless fossils of organisms that never actually existed. Which would be inconsistent with the observation that God is truth.

 

[mindlight]

Barbarian observes:
Maybe coral can grow hundreds of times faster, although there's no evidence for that, or for the huge increase in nutrients and energy required for such a thing." It's testable, but of course no one is foolish enough to try it.




If you can show that any coral can grow hundreds of times the normal rate, you'll have an argument.

It's testable. Why do you suppose creationists are unwilling to test their beliefs on this?



If you can document that anything like hundreds of times faster is possible, you have an argument. Remember, hundreds of thousands of years is a very conservative estimate. It assumes that the coral was always growing at close to optimum conditions, that the sinking of the volcano was always exactly the maximum rate of coral growth possible, and there had never been any periods of coral loss over that tiem.



Nope. No one would actually argue that you can make reef coral grow hundreds of times faster than the normal rate.

There's layer after layer of coral each on top of the next. So you're asking me if God might have faked the evidence to fool us. Since God is truth, we can reject that as well.



Because if you argue that "God created it that way", there are countless fossils of organisms that never actually existed. Which would be inconsistent with the observation that God is truth.

Actually having just read AIGs view on this a more plausible argument is that apparently old reefs are just the accumulated debris of older reefs as a result of the flood. Hence the existence of fossils in the debris. So no need to hypothesise a faster rate of growth in the past at all.

Ancient “Fossil Reefs”—Formed in the Flood?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually having just read AIGs view on this a more plausible argument is that apparently old reefs are just the accumulated debris of older reefs as a result of the flood.

That won't work, either. That would just be impacted sand. But there are layers of actual fossils. So that fails.

Hence the existence of fossils in the debris.

No debris. Just layers of coral organisms, one on top of another, just like it is close to the surface. The "debris" story fell apart a long time ago.

Notice the annual layers. No "debris."

You still have to account for all those layers of actual coral. And as AIG admits, there is no way to deal with the evidence without long ages.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Assumes:
1) a uniform rate of growth backtracked over a period of time for which we have no observations and no audit trail.
2) That coral does not grow faster in certain special conditions.
3) That coral was not just created in place and somehow survived the flood.

Assumes: The evidence left behind in the earth cannot be right. So there must be an explanation to explain it away.

 

[mindlight]

That won't work, either. That would just be impacted sand. But there are layers of actual fossils. So that fails.



No debris. Just layers of coral organisms, one on top of another, just like it is close to the surface. The "debris" story fell apart a long time ago.

Notice the annual layers. No "debris."

You still have to account for all those layers of actual coral. And as AIG admits, there is no way to deal with the evidence without long ages.

AIG say the debris is coral from broken reefs

 

[The Barbarian]

AIG say the debris is coral from broken reefs

Let's take a look at an actual core...

Look like debris to you?

Me neither.

 

[mindlight]

Let's take a look at an actual core...

Look like debris to you?

Me neither.

You see what you want to see. But the link I shared differentiated between different kinds of reef formation. Living coral broken off by the flood accumulated in one place along with lime silt, dead organisms and sand/ mud. Then with time compressed by the weight of new coral growing out of it above. Over 4500 years this is entirely possible. But since we have no audit trail neither of us know for sure.

From the article:

“Closer inspection of many of these ancient carbonate ‘reefs’ reveals that they are composed largely of carbonate mud with the larger skeletal particles ‘floating’ within the mud matrix. Conclusive evidence for a rigid organic framework does not exist in most of the ancient carbonate mounds. In this sense, they are remarkably different from modern, coral-algal reefs.

 

[mindlight]

Assumes: The evidence left behind in the earth cannot be right. So there must be an explanation to explain it away.

The facts are what can be proven. The inferential explanations are what is disputed. For all their Pomp and Jargon old earth evolutionists do not know and cannot prove what they are saying

 

[The Barbarian]

This looks like debris to you? Me neither. It's coral in intact layers. Well over a kilometer deep, formed about 0.4 cm per year.

You see what you want to see.

Sorry, that won't work. As you see, it's not broken up coral. It's nice neat layers, oriented upward, one layer at a time. The "debris story" was a desperate attempt to explain the facts away, but as you see, it won't work.

But the link I shared differentiated between different kinds of reef formation. Living coral broken off by the flood accumulated in one place along with lime silt, dead organisms and sand/ mud. Then with time compressed by the weight of new coral growing out of it above.

See above. It's a fairy tale, that anyone can see is a falsehood. No such cores turned up. Just layers of coral one atop the other.

AIG's attempt falls apart on inspection of the cores. It's not what they said it is.