Age Correlations, step by step.

quote:

---

Oh, but you are a silly last thursdayist

---

Am not. You are.

quote:

---

I've always pointed out the variations existed rather than identical rings. These correlate with climate -- climate that we know from history and climate that we see from other sources in the geoplogical past.

---

Variations were a daily thing. Maybe also a weekly thing. If a tree grew in days, then the variations were on a micro scale. Unlike today.

quote:

---

Not sufficient to say WOW sudden change here!!

​

Tree rings correlate with C-14 and with climate ... correlate with corals annual rings and daily rings and ... etc.

---

Tree rings correlate with fast growth as well, together with the yearly growth we had after the change.

quote:

---

evo conclusion -- the process we see today was what happened in the past.

​

simple conclusion -- no something {undefined} "else" happened even thought there it no evidence for it.

---

Conclusion is too strong a word. assumption and belief is better. Grouping similar assumptions regarding old ages doesn't make them any better. We have to look at them individually. Why is one tree ring that grew in a week different from one that grows in a year?

quote:

---

Curiously this effect is also missing from the geological record ...

---

No, it is not missing anywhere, we were left with things in this state, and assume this is always how it was. Soon as we stop that we see clearly.

quote:

---

That curiously does not leave any evidence, nor is there any explanation for how it happened, what happened or why it happened

---

The fact it now decays is evidence that it was left in a decaying state. The fact light moves slow is evidence it no longer is the light it was. The fact a tree had rings, regardless of how long it took to produce them is evidence there were rings, not of how long it took to grow. The fact that we recognize a spiritual realm yet it cannot be seen is evidence we are in a seperated state at the moment. There are many ways to interpret evidences. There is an explanation, but no scientific explanation for either side. What you have billed as science applied to the past is just present based observations and speculations.

quote:

---

You claim the tree rings are a product of growth in a day. The amount of growth in the tree would have to be similar to the annual growth or this kind of change would be visible -- it would then be different

---

No, the trees that grew looked a lot the same. The variations as they grew were proportionate to the time frame in which they grew.

quote:

---

I sure can link similar behavior to observed conditions, correlate them between different species alive at the same time, show the annual rings and the climate effects on the annual rings are the same across species, and note the daily growth rings of those species that exhibit daily growth rings now, also exhibited daily growth patterns in the past in exactly the same way (including the correct numbers of days).

---

So what? It also fits the faster growths. You need something else, you don't have it, question your beliefs.

quote:

---

Science makes hypothesis, based on observations, and then based on the hypothesis it makes predictions of new observations (such as the existence of daily rings in fossil corals), it then looks to see if the evidence corraborates or invalidates the hypothesis.

---

Based on present observations. That is the point, who cares how many hypothesis people make based just on that unless they demonstrate the past had to be the same.

quote:

---

It would have a effect on the amount of sunlight per day, obviously. This is the major problem YOU have with claiming daily rings in place of annual rings: it would affect the daily growth rings of the corals.

​

It would not affect the total sunlight per year, so the amount of tree growth in a year would be similar enough in total to count for rings, but the pattern would be different -- there would be much less growth during a long night with no daylight (no growth from chlorophyl derived energy without daylight) than during a winter with days and nights (reduced growth due to reduced hours of sunlight per day).

---

The light was different, and the growth rates were different. Photosynthesis as we know it did not exist. That is because that process involves our present light. The former light and process was different. We cannot base it on the present. How a coral now grows is not applicable.

quote:

---

Changing the earths rate of rotation would not affect the annual orbit of the earth around the sun or in the rest of the solar system -- beyond the observed and measured affect on the moon due to the interaction with the tides ... that other correlation you have yet to explain in your fantasy world, so your answer here is 'god-did-it' (to fool you). So no, just changing the rate of earth's rotation would not affect "a plethora" of other things.

---

I don't know we need to change the rotation. What effect exactly of the tide and moon relates to the deep past?On a side note, the atomic structure of an atom would be altered if we were to add an electron, or take one away, or change a charge here or there, or turn a neutron into something else. The whole orbit of the atom would be different. Altering the fundamental state of matter in the universe may have seen changes like this on a bigger scale, changing orbits as well. That's how big a change we are talking here.

quote:

---

What we consistently come down to in science is that the evidence corraborates the tree rings 4,500 years ago being annual tree rings just like they were 4,400 years ago.

---

Also that it fits a faster growth. If less carbon was in the tree in the past, because say of the light and growth rates, and matter state, etc. great, you might read that as great age, because you thought the carbon was gone because of decay! Ha. Variations, I already covered, any variation you can cook up is covered in a young earth light, at least as well as an old one. Science alone cannot tell us one way or the other of the future or past being as this temporary physical universe.The bible can. But this is a science forum, so all we need to concern ourselves with is how science cannot do it. That is a fact. It is limited to the fishbowl of the present.

What you see fit is one thing, what you can demonstrate and evidence is entirely another.

quote:

---

if no dating methods correlated then that would be evidence that past "constants" were not the same as present "constants". There's no reason that any dating methods would correlate if they were all sent out of whack as things changed. Where are the inconsistencies?

---

The constants we know are the ones that were left as a result of this big seperation change. It is not within the physical universe we live in, and matter's present state we look for a change, it is the change. It is beyond that limit. Changing constants now, in the fishbowl would leave a trace, because it would be in that case a change within the fishbowl. Those we can measure, detect, and see.In a sense constants did not change since they came to be constant. But how do we determine that? If our constants came to be 4400 years ago, we do nor expect change in constants we know, cause we assume this is the constant of the future and past.Science cannot tell us that. The documentation of the scriptures can. See, we can't just look at present tree ring growth process, and assume it worked the same. If a tree grew in a week, in many cases, the rings would have variations, but they were not reflecting great time at all.

I accept reason, documentation, evidence, and there is no reasonable doubt that the second world war happened, or that I really had a mother. We have much good solid evidences, including things we can date, like videos, books, birth certificates, etc.We don't have any of this for before the flood. We have the bible saying a lot of things that mean it all had to be different to be true. Like water above the earth. It can't happen in the present laws of physics, we would cook. Trees can't grow in a week now. Man can't live forever, or a sun even. The flood waters can not be taken off the planet under current laws, barring some miracle. Ans on and on it goes. Same with the future, we can't have a gols city the size of the mmon land gently on earth, from space. Gravity would kick in. We can't have 12 different fruits on the same tree, a different one growing every soingle month of the year. Etc.Admitting a different past and future denies no evidence, no science, no observations. It is not unreasonable.

quote:

---

It's funny - or it would be, if it weren't actually so sad - how you mention precisely some prime examples of things that can be very easily forged, and of which there are countless known instances of forgeries.

---

All experiences of man for years, and all the evidences can not be forged. You have to be kidding. You sound like you think denying the second world war and our own childhood, and diplomas, pasports, archives, ad infinitum is something we can do reasonably. Sorry. No.

quote:

---

Any normal person would then conclude that what the Bible says cannot be true ..

---

Only by assumption that the past was the same as now. That isn't science.

quote:

---

A complete non-answer. I ask again: "Why do different lines of evidence agree? "

​

Secondly, how do all dating methods agree with a young earth age?

---

You name it, it agree. Tree rings? A faster growth rate then. Decay? There was none then. Light? It was not this light. You name it, there is nothing but assumptions it was the same. No science. Science is limited to observations of the state of being of matter, and fundamental forces in this temporary physical universe. No science says it was and always be like this. None.

quote:

---

So I ask again, "what evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?"

---

I don't know they were daily. Some might be closer to weekly or hourly. But it boils down to a different past. Light, matter, etc. If it was the same the growth was the same, if it was different the growth was different. Science cannot tell us this ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. What evidence do you have the state of the universe was the same? Zip. So cut the claims of science on that bit.

quote:

---

No evidence of physical law constancy is not evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Even if physical laws weren't constant, the earth may therefore actually be older than we think. Or younger, but only slightly. Nothing about law inconstancy suggests a 6,000 year old earth. If it is the Achilles heel of old earth "belief", then it is just as much an Achilles heel of young earth fantasy.

---

Basically all you say here is science does not know and cannot tell us this. This is correct. Remember this before teaching it to kids as science. Science is in the dark, and will remain there, in the dark ages regarding the past and future. Don't impose the dark ages on kids as science. You cannot know.I know. But since it isn't science that tells me, that doesn'r concern you. All you have to remember is your admitted dark ignorance there!

quote:

---

Relative requires that a potentially possible phenomena (sans evidence) must be evidentially disproven before any conclusion can be reached for a given hypothesis. It therefore stands to reason that relative holds himself to exactly the same standard

---

You have sans evidence for future and past as the present claims. Neither of us has science directly to cover our beliefs and assumptions about it. The fishbowl in question only has science inside it, you cannot claim it beyond the limits of the recent past and present.

Ned, you've been allowed to make up whatever utter nonsense you feel like and yet, still, with all that, you are unable to actually explain the patterns that have been pointed out to you. Like the past you only assume was as the present. Without being able to back up your beliefs, I am afraid they are utter nonsense.

quote:

---

"It changed and the old way made it look like that". But when asked "Just what changes made it look this way, how did the various things change to make the pattern stay consistent across the change." you offere no explanation what so ever.

---

The changes were as follows. Get a pencil, and try to remember, rather than resorting to false accusations here. As we all know, you have a weak arguement, and your ONLY recourse is to abuse mod privliges and silence people like I. More importantly, ideas like mine.
The big change was the seperation of the spiritual from the physical. Got it? That is what left things as we know them.

quote:

---

It all boils down to: God did something that I have no clue about and the result is that the only rational conclusion one can come to after looking at what He did is that the earth is OLD.

---

The old conclusion is not rational, it is a belief that rests only on assuming it was always the same. It doesn't look old to me at all. Not in the least. I find that as unreasonable as your starting assumptions of sameness. It just looks like it is decaying, in this temporary state.

quote:

---

..He is a power abusing liar. This is the only thing that you allow anyone to conclude. I think that many Christians would not appreciate you calling their God a liar.

---

You, as a tyranical mod are a power abusing liar, Ned. This is the only thing that you allow anyone to conclude. Many believers do not like you calling God a liar either. Just because you insist on looking at the present state of decay and physical onlyism as permanent, and falsely apply it to the past.I can handle your type anytime, in a sleep walk, your only hope of sounding like a debate winner is being the only voice left. Some are on to you Ned. Ha ha.