What's enough evidence?

[rmwilliamsll]

I must be missing something. You claimed the oldest living tree was 12,000 years old.

my exact words:

we have 12K years of dendrochronological data

I guess just from a pure debating strategy one has to wonder why you would bring tree rings into the discussion. But educate me. I'll admit up front I'm coming into this with very limited knowledge.

because of the extraordinary amount of the data.
because the theory is mature enough that it is being used to correct C14 data for changes in the amout of C14 created in the atmosphere.
because it is clearer and easier for laypeople to understand than ice cores, varves and coral layers, all basically the same type of theory(annual deposition) the lake varves will imho, replace tree rings as the best theory pretty soon however.
it is sufficient to falsify YECist claims


.....

 

[Calminian]

I must be missing something. You claimed the oldest living tree was 12,000 years old.

my exact words:
we have 12K years of dendrochronological data

I see. Well at the time I didn't know what dendrochronology was, so I assumed you were answering my question about tree rings. In your original argument you claimed the number of rings in a tree falsified a young earth view. This gives the strong impression to lay people that there are more than 5000 rings in known living trees.

It appears tree rings alone don't falsify YEC chronology. So why do the folks here bring them up so much?

because of the extraordinary amount of the data.
because the theory is mature enough that it is being used to correct C14 data for changes in the amout of C14 created in the atmosphere.
because it is clearer and easier for laypeople to understand than ice cores, varves and coral layers, all basically the same type of theory(annual deposition) .....
it is sufficient to falsify YECist claims.....

Why not just tell laypeople the truth? Tree rings on their own don't falsify a young earth view. In fact they seem to support the idea of a 4,500 year old flood.

Do you have any theories as to why the tree rings cap off at around 4500 rings?

the lake varves will imho, replace tree rings as the best theory pretty soon however.

Boy I sure hope so! As a layman I can tell you the tree ring argument is in desperate need of relief.

 

[michabo]

Fully anchored chronologies exist for 8,500 years in the US and almost 11,000 years in Germany using tree rings. We can go back many tens of thousands of years using varves.

"Why not just tell laypeople the truth? Tree rings on their own don't falsify a young earth view. In fact they seem to support the idea of a 4,500 year old flood. "

What would it take for you to admit that you are wrong? Even the Bristlecone pines go back 4,900 years to the oldest living tree which is still too old for you.

 

[Calminian]

What would it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

In my first post I mentioned what it would take for me to accept an old earth. Someone would have to prove the Bible was an unreliable witness. You have a corroborative book of 66 authors from 3 continents spanning over at least 1500 years (I believe longer). All of them speak of a God of miracles and miracles don't seem to be understood by most scientists. It's the historical and testimonial evidence that has really made my faith solid.

Another possibility would be to convince me I'm misinterpreting the Bible—that it's equivocal on issues like the meaning of "day" a world wide flood etc.

Even the Bristlecone pines go back 4,900 years to the oldest living tree which is still too old for you.

Now it's 4900. Hmm. What happened to 4600? Well that's still pretty close to the flood chronologies I believe in. I mean I'm sure there's some margin of error there. Sorry that's not going to be enough to give up the vast amount of historical and testimonial evidence I find in the Bible.

 

[michabo]

Now it's 4900. Hmm. What happened to 4600?

There are two particularly old Bristlecone Pine trees in the US. One that was killed by an early investigator that was 4600 years old, and one that has since been found to be 4900 years old, but for the sake of preservation, its location is not publicized.

Well that's still pretty close to the flood chronologies I believe in. I mean I'm sure there's some margin of error there.

I notice that you ignore the 11,000 years of anchored rings found in Germany and 8,500 years in the US. Neither fit into your margin of error. Or the tens of thousands of years with lake varves. How do those fit in?

Heck, we haven't scratched the surface of the evidence, and already you are ignoring inconvenient facts.


So, given that you are happy to ignore evidence, what would it take for you to admit that you are wrong? Be specific. What would you have to see?

 

[nvxplorer]

In my first post I mentioned what it would take for me to accept an old earth. Someone would have to prove the Bible was an unreliable witness. You have a corroborative book of 66 authors from 3 continents spanning over at least 1500 years (I believe longer). All of them speak of a God of miracles and miracles don't seem to be understood by most scientists. It's the historical and testimonial evidence that has really made my faith solid.

As long as you view natural phenomena as being of supernatural/miraculous origin, I suspect no amount of evidence would be convincing. It seems the Bible is your evidence, and anything to the contrary has a supernatural explanation, such as the appearance of old age.

 

[wagsbags]

I notice that you ignore the 11,000 years of anchored rings found in Germany and 8,500 years in the US. Neither fit into your margin of error. Or the tens of thousands of years with lake varves.

To give him the benefit of the doubt I don't think he knows what that means. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what this means. Are the trees that old? Do they somehow get the date the tree died and use rings from there? I think we need an explanation.

 

[lttben]

I am new to this website and I have been reading through some of these threads of posts about Evolution vs. Creation. I have always been interested in this particular debate, but as I read the posts, I am beginning to see so many flaws in the ways we present our arguments.



First of all, I would venture to say that most of us are not scientists, therefore many of us are speaking about scientific things from personal in-experience. What most of us have done is either read from a book, or thought up a plausible argument, and presented it in these debates. What is lacking in all of this is the respect and trust that is necessary for someone to believe another person. I have read some very convincing arguments on both sides of the debate, but the problem has been that neither side believes the other’s science because they believe the other is speaking from a biased point of view. Also, one side comes to the argument assuming the other side is wrong automatically.



Secondly, I now see that it is impossible for all people everywhere to read the best points that are presented on either side of the debate. Thus, even if a person was able to completely prove one side of the issue in such a compelling way as to persuade all who read the post, not all people would have a chance to read it! Why? Because it would be lost in the shuffle of such an overwhelming number of posts on this and many other websites! Also, I would refer to my first point in this, because the reader will mostly likely question the integrity of those giving their points before considering the points presented. EVEN IF the statements thoroughly proved or disproved one side or the other!



Lastly, it is obvious that those who defend one side or the other do this from a world-view that is influenced by their belief system. You assume that what you believe is true because you have been taught it all your life. Also, you might assume what you believe is true because there are many people who believe it. Or, you could believe things you hear because some of it seems logical. If all of us are honest with ourselves, we tend to start there as a foundation, and then go from there.



Speaking about foundations, my biggest question about the whole thing is “Which side of the debate makes the most sense of the world around me and the things that I experience and witness every day? Such as sin, death, good, bad, anger, hate, love, compassion, forgiveness, art, beauty, etc.”



In my research, Evolution is still a theory, and cannot be proven scientifically (consult a dictionary for the definition of the scientific method). Very much the same way that you cannot prove scientifically that Napoleon existed. You can prove it by written testimony of people who knew that Napoleon existed. This isn’t science, it’s testimony. In response to this statement, I would ask an evolutionist “were you there, watching and taking notes as evolution happened?” The answer most definitely has to be “no”! Therefore, logically it seems impossible for evolutionists to difinitively make statements as to how things all started. One more thing though, logically, the very basis of evolution’s theory is flawed! For a simple organism to become a complex organism, DNA information MUST be added to the organism in order for it to function. Evolutionists say that less complex organisms randomly became more complex organisms through mutation, but I recall learning that a mutation in an organism is a loss of information in DNA: a mistake, not an improvement.



Theistic evolutionists say that God added the extra information to these less complex organisms, but I submit that this statement is only said in an effort to make evolution and the Bible to somehow harmonize. This view-point confusingly assumes that God is powerless, that He would use a system that is full of dysfunction and chance, and that He supports a system that encourages death and mistakes. These things don’t sound harmonious to the rest of the Bible that I have read! The Bible doesn’t even hint at God using evolution as the way He created the world. Most of what these people believe has been added to the original scriptures in order to be understood. It also conveniently fits with what the world believes about evolution.



Enough about that though!

The creation theory cannot be proven scientifically either, although it makes much more sense of everything happening around us. (I am willing to discuss how I have come to that conclusion, but there isn’t enough time now to address all of those issues.) Actually, more and more scientists are pointing to the possibility that there is an intelligent designer that created everything simultaneously! Also, there is overwhelmingly more physical evidence that points to an intelligent designer than Evolution. These evidences are not even considered by hard-core evolutionists because they assume that these are even not possible.



Ultimately the Christian must depend on their faith to believe that the intelligent designer mentioned is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence to support this view. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christ’s existence and influence!



I’m going to end this here! I know this post will not end the debate, but I think this is all I have time to say at this time. Sorry it’s so long!

 

[Nightson]

On the tree rings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_ring

On ice cores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

And on varves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

Hope that helps everyone.

 

[Nightson]

Also, one side comes to the argument assuming the other side is wrong automatically.

Well actually I'd love to see some proof of creation or ID or something, or something that actually seriously challenged the theory of evolution. I might like evolution from aesthetic point of view, but I was convinced of it by the sheer amounts of evidence, I have no problem adjusting should more information come into the picture. In fact you'll find the majority of those who support evolution are willing to change their views to accomodate new evidence.

Secondly, I now see...<snipped for brevity> EVEN IF the statements thoroughly proved or disproved one side or the other!

Sad isn't it.

Lastly, it is obvious that those who defend one side or the other do this from a world-view that is influenced by their belief system. You assume that what you believe is true because you have been taught it all your life. Also, you might assume what you believe is true because there are many people who believe it. Or, you could believe things you hear because some of it seems logical. If all of us are honest with ourselves, we tend to start there as a foundation, and then go from there.

Actually this really isn't true. Evolution is accepted by a large range of people each having a different world-view. And I think for almost every person who accepts evolution, it's the evidence that has gotten them, the sheer amount of evidence adds up, and people eventually accept it.

Speaking about foundations, my biggest question about the whole thing is “Which side of the debate makes the most sense of the world around me and the things that I experience and witness every day? Such as sin, death, good, bad, anger, hate, love, compassion, forgiveness, art, beauty, etc.”

Well if you want the best explanation for the physical world then evolution's the way to go. 150 years and no evidence to the contrary yet. But notice that many of those things you mention aren't covered by evolution, many of those or more philosophical or theological concepts.

In my research, Evolution is still a theory, and cannot be proven scientifically (consult a dictionary for the definition of the scientific method). Very much the same way that you cannot prove scientifically that Napoleon existed. You can prove it by written testimony of people who knew that Napoleon existed. This isn’t science, it’s testimony. In response to this statement, I would ask an evolutionist “were you there, watching and taking notes as evolution happened?” The answer most definitely has to be “no”! Therefore, logically it seems impossible for evolutionists to difinitively make statements as to how things all started.

Well evolution is a theory, just like gravity. The meaning of theory in science is much different than the meaning in the common vernacular. Theory is as high as you get in science. Evolution is supported by 1) Some of the facts of evolution which can be easily observed today and 2) the massive evidence behind evolution.

One more thing though, logically, the very basis of evolution’s theory is flawed! For a simple organism to become a complex organism, DNA information MUST be added to the organism in order for it to function. Evolutionists say that less complex organisms randomly became more complex organisms through mutation, but I recall learning that a mutation in an organism is a loss of information in DNA: a mistake, not an improvement.

I'm afraid UI don't know enough about this area in particular to refute it, but trust me this has been refuted before. As for that last part, a mutation can ad, subtract, or just change DNA, but that's not what's really important, it's what affect that change has on the organism, whether the mutation is valuable to the organism in the particular enviroment is highly variable, and what may be a disadvantageous mutation in one setting may be a beneficial mutation in another. So the effect on the creature and whether that is a negative, positive, or neutral effect is what's important,

The creation theory cannot be proven scientifically either, although it makes much more sense of everything happening around us. (I am willing to discuss how I have come to that conclusion, but there isn’t enough time now to address all of those issues.) Actually, more and more scientists are pointing to the possibility that there is an intelligent designer that created everything simultaneously! Also, there is overwhelmingly more physical evidence that points to an intelligent designer than Evolution. These evidences are not even considered by hard-core evolutionists because they assume that these are even not possible.

Do you mean creationism or do you mean Christianity? Creationism plays havoc with the natural world and really explains nothing, but the theology may explain a great deal. Psst, scientists aren't actually doing that, I'd stop short of calling it a creationist lie, more like a persuasive urban myth. But trust me, scientists aren't actually abandoning the theory of evolution. And becareful about painting with that broad brush, many of us evolutionists will indeed consider the possibility.

Ultimately the Christian must depend on their faith to believe that the intelligent designer mentioned is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence to support this view. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christ’s existence and influence!

I’m going to end this here! I know this post will not end the debate, but I think this is all I have time to say at this time. Sorry it’s so long!

Which is wholy irrelevant to evolution. Evolution and Christianity can exist quite comfortably side by side, there's no reason why God can't direct evolution.

 

[Nightson]

In my first post I mentioned what it would take for me to accept an old earth. Someone would have to prove the Bible was an unreliable witness. You have a corroborative book of 66 authors from 3 continents spanning over at least 1500 years (I believe longer). All of them speak of a God of miracles and miracles don't seem to be understood by most scientists. It's the historical and testimonial evidence that has really made my faith solid.

But I have no real desire to convince you the Bible isn't reliable, it's your faith and you should be free to believe what you believe.

Another possibility would be to convince me I'm misinterpreting the Bible—that it's equivocal on issues like the meaning of "day" a world wide flood etc.

1) Evidence your interpetation is wrong using theolgy and such methods not tied to science? You might want to start another thread for that and ask theistic evolutionists about their interpetations, I'm not really qualified to handle that.

2) Would some amount of evidence convince you that your interpetation is wrong because it conflicts with reality and therefore must be an incorrect interpetation? (Such as any interpetation that says the earth is flat must be incorrect because it contradicts reality)

 

[michabo]

Do they somehow get the date the tree died and use rings from there? I think we need an explanation.

Yes, an anchored chronology matches the rings of dead trees to those of other living or dead trees. Because the rings are influenced by environmental factors, we can locate key signatures and events and match between them, so that we can count tree rings, even on dead trees, using their rings and the rings of living trees to determine how long ago the dead tree lived. Using this technique, we have gone back 11,000 years.

Varves, as was linked earlier, are generally annual depositions in lakes. These may extend for tens of thousands of years.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, an anchored chronology matches the rings of dead trees to those of other living or dead trees. Because the rings are influenced by environmental factors, we can locate key signatures and events and match between them, so that we can count tree rings, even on dead trees, using their rings and the rings of living trees to determine how long ago the dead tree lived. Using this technique, we have gone back 11,000 years.

Varves, as was linked earlier, are generally annual depositions in lakes. These may extend for tens of thousands of years.

The widths of the rings vary in each geographical area depending on the growing conditions. The match is to the patterns of growth encoded in the width of the rings over a period of years. For instance, rings are very narrow in the years after huge volcano ash into the atmosphere events. They are narrow during the years known as the little ice age. Events that restrict growth for some reason. Likewise years of above rain fall, especially in desert regions like the bristlecone pines area are wider. It is not just a few rings that are matched for a correlation but many (perhaps someone in the field can supply a number).

here is an interesting read on the topic, events and years:
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/3000bc.html

....

 

[wagsbags]

First of all, I would venture to say that most of us are not scientists, therefore many of us are speaking about scientific things from personal in-experience.

Actually I'm a nuclear engineer so that's pretty much a scientist.

Lastly, it is obvious that those who defend one side or the other do this from a world-view that is influenced by their belief system. You assume that what you believe is true because you have been taught it all your life. Also, you might assume what you believe is true because there are many people who believe it. Or, you could believe things you hear because some of it seems logical. If all of us are honest with ourselves, we tend to start there as a foundation, and then go from there.

Right, creationists' foundation is that evidence other than scriptual evidence is irrelevant and evolutionists' foundation is that if god exists he would not so blatantly deceieve us.

In my research, Evolution is still a theory, and cannot be proven scientifically (consult a dictionary for the definition of the scientific method).

Theory has 2 definitions. One is "hypothesis," the other is basically equal to "law." Scientists take evolution to be the second one, like the "theory" of gravity.

I would ask an evolutionist “were you there, watching and taking notes as evolution happened?” The answer most definitely has to be “no”!

And you were there?

One more thing though, logically, the very basis of evolution’s theory is flawed! For a simple organism to become a complex organism, DNA information MUST be added to the organism in order for it to function. Evolutionists say that less complex organisms randomly became more complex organisms through mutation, but I recall learning that a mutation in an organism is a loss of information in DNA: a mistake, not an improvement.

This tells me that your "research" into evolution largely consists of reading websites such as AnswersinGenesis. Your definition of mutation with respect to information is nothing short of a lie. I suggest you check out this thread. http://www.christianforums.com/t2007721-computer-program-mutate.html and while you're at it this one too http://www.christianforums.com/t1961658-questions-for-rightwinggirl-new-information.html

The creation theory cannot be proven scientifically either, although it makes much more sense of everything happening around us. (I am willing to discuss how I have come to that conclusion, but there isn’t enough time now to address all of those issues.)

I guess you haven't learned any quantum mechanics, the universe doesn't "make sense."

Actually, more and more scientists are pointing to the possibility that there is an intelligent designer

maybe this

that created everything simultaneously!

definitely not this.

Also, there is overwhelmingly more physical evidence that points to an intelligent designer than Evolution.

Not true. More evidence that you read AiG. Go to talkorigins.org, whoever told you this is lying to you. Unless you assume that the scripture is all that matters and that it alone is "more" evidence than anything else possible.

These evidences are not even considered by hard-core evolutionists because they assume that these are even not possible.

This is the "evolution is accepted because scientists are atheists" theory. It would be ridiculous even without the fact that most christians believe in evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, I would venture to say that most of us are not scientists, therefore many of us are speaking about scientific things from personal in-experience.

Actually, quite a few of us are practicing scientists. However, I don't know anyone that can claim formal training in every field discussed in the evo vs. creo debates. All anyone asks is accuracy and logical debate.

What most of us have done is either read from a book, or thought up a plausible argument, and presented it in these debates.

I'm not looking for plausible, I'm looking for arguments supported by empirical evidence.

What is lacking in all of this is the respect and trust that is necessary for someone to believe another person.

That's the great thing about science. You don't have to trust anyone at anytime. Someone claims that a rock dates to such and such a date? Great, you can go out to that same rock formation and date it yourself. Someone claims that such and such a fossil is transitional between two other fossils? Great, go look at the fossils yourself. Science is founded on mistrust, not on faith as religions are.

I have read some very convincing arguments on both sides of the debate, but the problem has been that neither side believes the other’s science because they believe the other is speaking from a biased point of view. Also, one side comes to the argument assuming the other side is wrong automatically.

How can you be biased if you present all of the data? The fact is that professional creationists actually sign an oath to ignore data if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. If this isn't biased then I don't understand what the word should mean.

Lastly, it is obvious that those who defend one side or the other do this from a world-view that is influenced by their belief system.

I don't have a belief system. I simply accept scientific theories that are supported by all of the evidence. I would withdraw this acceptance if evidence showed these theories to be wrong.

You assume that what you believe is true because you have been taught it all your life.

Nope, because I studied it. This is what I find amazing. Creationists (not necessarily you) think that evolution is just based on oral tradition. It's not. It's supported by evidence which is increasing at an exponential rate given the advancement of DNA technology.

Also, you might assume what you believe is true because there are many people who believe it.

I find it compelling that 99.9% of biologists who look at the same evidence I do come to the same conclusion I do. No one blames a 12 person jury for finding a criminal guilty when shown conclusive evidence.

Ultimately the Christian must depend on their faith to believe that the intelligent designer mentioned is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence to support this view. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christ’s existence and influence!

Humans use genetic algorithms to make complicated circuits. There's no reason that God wouldn't have used the same process to produce life on this planet.

I’m going to end this here! I know this post will not end the debate, but I think this is all I have time to say at this time. Sorry it’s so long![

/QUOTE]

Don't take my words too harshly. Just wanted to relate my thoughts as well.

 

[Calminian]

To give him the benefit of the doubt I don't think he knows what that means. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what this means. Are the trees that old? Do they somehow get the date the tree died and use rings from there? I think we need an explanation.

Thanks WB. I admit I don't understand all the technical details. I have a basic understanding of what both sides are saying, but it's very basic. (This is why I try to leave the technical stuff to those more qualified to discuss it.) One side is saying that if you combine tree rings and other dating methods you can date some trees back to 11K plus years. The other is saying these methods work off faulty assumptions and that conditions after the flood may have affected the evidence we are observing today. I cited an AiG article on the subject.

I'm simply saying that, from a layman's point of view, it is very interesting that we can't find any trees, any where in the world, living or dead, with over 5K rings. Why is that? So along with the testimony in scripture of a world-wide flood, there also seems to be corroborative evidence in tree rings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks WB. I admit I don't understand all the technical details. I have a basic understanding of what both sides are saying, but it's very basic. (This is why I try to leave the technical stuff to those more qualified to discuss it.) One side is saying that if you combine tree rings and other dating methods you can date some trees back to 11K plus years.

And they do so using solid scientific evidence. At no place do we find a break in the 11k year record. If a flood did occur and these forests had to start over then we would expect a break in the record. There is no break.

The other is saying these methods work off faulty assumptions and that conditions after the flood may have affected the evidence we are observing today. I cited an AiG article on the subject.

Their biggest argument is that multiple rings can grow in one year. This is true, but only for certain species, and not in the species used for the tree ring analysis. They just make up excuses so they can ignore the data. Not a good way to do science.

I'm simply saying that, from a layman's point of view, it is very interesting that we can't find any trees, any where in the world, living or dead, with over 5K rings. Why is that?

Maybe because trees don't live more than 5,000 years? I don't see any humans older than 200, is that a problem?

So along with the testimony in scripture of a world-wide flood, there also seems to be corroborative evidence in tree rings.

Can you please show me the break in tree ring records around the time of the flood? Can you please show the same break in the coral records, varve records, and ice layer records? They don't exist because nothing interrupted tree ring formation, varve deposition, ice layer formation, or the growth of coral. A global flood would most assuredly interrupt tree growth, ice formation, and lake deposition, not to mention kill of shallow ocean corals.

 

[Calminian]

But I have no real desire to convince you the Bible isn't reliable, it's your faith and you should be free to believe what you believe.

I understand that and appreciate that. But you have to understand faith to me probably has a different meaning than you think. I don't want to just believe in something, I want to believe in what is true.

I wasn't raised a bible believer. My parents certainly weren't. In fact I wasn't very fond of bible believers. Over a period of time I became convinced the Bible was a reliable source of truth. I've looked into manuscript evidence (to make sure what I'm reading is the same as the original), read and listened up on corroborating archeological discoveries, studied predictive prophesies especially those concerning the coming Messiah. I've also checked out the ostensible discrepancies and contradictions between the various books of the Bible.

And when I did start to believe and follow biblical teachings I noticed and very significant change in my life. This is very hard evidence to ignore. 4900 tree rings just ain't gonna undo it. In fact 4900 tree rings makes it even easier.

1) Evidence your interpetation is wrong using theolgy and such methods not tied to science? You might want to start another thread for that and ask theistic evolutionists about their interpetations, I'm not really qualified to handle that.

I've spent hundreds of pages dialoguing with TEs. My interpretation of scripture is much closer to Bible skeptics' who realize what the biblical authors were saying but don't believe them. Actually I used to believe in old earth interpretations of the Bible. I used to believe something called the gap theory and then the day-age theory. But once I started closely examining the text I realized those models just weren't compatible.

2) Would some amount of evidence convince you that your interpetation is wrong because it conflicts with reality and therefore must be an incorrect interpetation? (Such as any interpetation that says the earth is flat must be incorrect because it contradicts reality)

I've also looked into claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth and a geocentric solar system. The text doesn't support these views. In fact it's totally equivocal on the subjects. In some ways I wish the same were true of the creation week and flood.

I'm just like you Nightson. I want to believe in what is true

 

[Calminian]

As long as you view natural phenomena as being of supernatural/miraculous origin, I suspect no amount of evidence would be convincing.

Some forms of evidence are very convincing to me. The problem with scientific evidence is it's limited to natural processes. It's not that I ignore all of it, but when it comes to verifying miraculous world-wide events like those recorded in Genesis, the scientific method isn't going to be very effective (as I understand it). This is why it's the form of investigation I'm most skeptical of (in this area of biblical miracles). But certainly scientific is not the only form of evidence. It appears many people are confused about this.

It seems the Bible is your evidence, and anything to the contrary has a supernatural explanation, such as the appearance of old age.

But when you understand what the Bible is, I think you'll see it's a very wise choice. It's a collection of testimonies about the same miracle working God. I didn't just choose to believe the bible, I was convinced of its reliability. I wasn't raised to believe it.

 

[michabo]

This is very hard evidence to ignore. 4900 tree rings just ain't gonna undo it. In fact 4900 tree rings makes it even easier.

Why do you even bother reading about science? Why do you bother looking at the world around you? You ignore what is inconvenient, so save yourself the trouble of looking.

For example, tree rings. The oldest person is about 120, so does this support the claim that the earth is only 120 years old? Your whole argument is patently absurd, and I suspect that even you know it. So give in, stop pretending that you have or need justification for your belief, and stop pretending that anything in the world could possibly shake your faith (even though, by rejecting the evidence of the earth, you are rejecting god's creation).