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.
I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.
4359 is the date of the flood. So as you can see, one or two trees postdate the flood, but most of them predate the flood as can be expected. But again some of the bristlestone pines have more than one ring in a year:
Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com
Ha. You were totally wrong and try to chalk it up to being a learning experience!!! What is learned is that you did not really know what you were talking about in the standard model.Creationists and scientists approach new evidence that seems to oppose their ideas in very different ways.
Scientists rejoice. They have a new clue to the nature of reality, and they grab onto it and track it down and enlarge their understanding, eventually. They revel in the temporary contradictions.
They allow cultish criteria only and would not know any new way..ever! Here is their way..'ever learning NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth'They base their ideas and understandings on the best possible evidence, and seek new ways to gather new evidence to help them get a better understanding.
Creationists deplore them. They view contrary evidence as an assault on everything they hold dear and seek ways - any way they can - to simply explain them away.
Show the correlation.Why does the Bristlecone pine data correlate with the German white oak data from half way around the world?
I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.
4359 is the date of the flood. So as you can see, one or two trees postdate the flood, but most of them predate the flood as can be expected. But again some of the bristlestone pines have more than one ring in a year:
Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com
Do not make a claim when you admit having no idea! Think about it.
I do not acknowledge that you know the sizes of stars or galaxies, or that everything you think is a star really is! You have a belief system. A few posts back I just showed how silly that was. You predict dwarf galaxies should be randomly placed, in fact they apparently are ANYTHING BUT!
Evolution must have life to work! Your claim that life should exist and evolution the universe depends on there first having been life! This is not science or fact.
In essence, then you are stating a belief that life is not created but appeared randomly.
That depends on where gravity is. You need a physical environment to have gravity. If there is more than just physical stuff in the universe anywhere, then gravity is not what it is here!
Forget trying to confuse the issue with great unknowns. How about right here on earth? You can't say how life started here! That kills your case something fierce.
Yes because to have evolution do anything at all we need life!I was not asserting anything for how life started, I am not making a claim how it started, but we know it started somehow since we're here.
You are not considering the number is zero for life unless God created it. We see life here, but we do not see any magically appearing life.My point initially was that anyone asserting sharpshooter fallacies around astronomical odds is not correctly considering all the numbers for where life could have started. Think about it.
Now matter how boring a text you use, it says nothing about any life anywhere. Time and space need to be the same as here for stars to be as big and far away as your silly standard model garbage claims!No matter how much you underlined and bolded, this says nothing about the numbers of planets & moons, numbers of stars, & numbers of galaxies nor refutes them.
No odds are involved. That is religion...pretending life came by some strange odds! Absurd. Stop preaching.Evolution needs life to exist, yes. But I am not stating life should exist on earth, rather I am stating given the numbers of possible places for life to exist it's not that odd that life exists.
Foolishness. Contingent? First it has to be alive!It doesn't have to be random/chance, it can be contingent. Again, look at the odds of all the places where life could exist.
Why would it be? Did I claim life appeared randomly or does abiofoolishness (abiogenesis) claim that??My point was that, contrary to what you stated about randomness, physical forces do not act in a random way. E.g Gravity is not random.
Science is clueless and devoid of evidence of any sort for any cause! The only evidence is the proven word of God. There is no other.What about earth, what is your evidence for how your god created life? I've only asked you 2 or 3 times now.
Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??Why show you facts you will ignore?
Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??
Because then the lurkers can have a laugh at how religious and pathetic the basis for your claims really is--why else??
Yes because to have evolution do anything at all we need life!
By claiming evolved life you are claiming life started and exists.
You are not considering the number is zero for life unless God created it.
Time and space need to be the same as here for stars to be as big and far away as your silly standard model garbage claims!
No odds are involved. That is religion...pretending life came by some strange odds! Absurd. Stop preaching.
Foolishness. Contingent? First it has to be alive!
The only evidence is the proven word of God.
You are confused. 4,004 BC is creation date. But thanks for showing that trees that couldn't survive underwater predate the flood.
well you never answered my statement about rings that show up multiple times a year due to drought conditions like California's current condition.
well you never answered my statement about rings that show up multiple times a year due to drought conditions like California's current condition.
Why does the Bristlecone pine data correlate with the German white oak data from half way around the world? You also need to explain how these two pieces of data also correlate with the lake varve and ice layer data.
Also, cite the actual scientists who did the work, not lying creationists.
you are right what do these have to do with it? other than changing the bars they don't apply at all. but we can talk about that after we exhaust our conversation on tree rings.varves and ice layers
what age is that oak? it's the first time I've heard about it.
You can read about the 10,000 year unbroken Irish oak series in this paper:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1555/1559
Pg. 97 to be precise.
And how was radio carbon dating used to date the stones in the pyramid? Some details would be appropriate here.radio carbon dating is better than some of the others but it still has it's flukes. For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt. Unless you have a habit to build pyramids from the top down I would think they got it wrong. carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rayes both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.
what age is that oak?
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?