Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

If trees grew fast in the distant past, rings would not be any correlation or way to determine ages because trees growing in weeks and their rings could not be seasonal/yearly rings.

You know that it is that way NOW! In the far past, say in the bristle-cone pines, if there were some visibly different rings, we would not know what caused them today!

Naturally ice layers would have also been different. Your correlations are flawed and all based on the present nature!

Whatever there was or was not need not concern you since you don't know. You try to limit the future and past to the mere constraints of the current world. How drool.

Ha. Why use anything unless you know? Why use a same state past, or the tooth fairy to tell us what the unknown was like? Just admit ignorance.

I seem to remember you could not even so much as produce a good pic of the inner tree rings for the bristlecone despite, if I recall having a family member in the field? Ha. Now you want to tell us that it all looks alike?

We know lots of details from the last few hundred years. You have no details for the far past though.

Name a specific example of something that is consistent? Tree rings you can't even show us from 5000 years ago apparently! Ha. If you did, then what, you expect some weird bug anomaly there? Noah endured the nature change, and he probably looked much the same!

We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.

If you were not the poster with a friend or relative in the field, fine. You can produce a good picture of the innermost tree rings of the oldest bristlecone pine for us then.

What if there was no change in rates? What if there was NO DECAY at all? Can you even so much as show there was on earth?

Only since there WAS decay in this nature!

What about this picture do you feel is some nonconformity near the center of the rings? In what way do you suggest it shows all rings had to have grown in this nature??We would need a living tree that was over 5000 years to see if there was something like you suggest, not merely other dead trees around affected by some conditions long ago that caused similar rings by the way. In either case the question becomes, why would the rings we see have to have been grown in the nature we know today?Get to it.

Prove it. I see no evidences presented. Why pretend and talk big?

Indeed you have no way of knowing! So make no claims either way. You have then no reason to doubt the different past recorded in history and Scripture are wrong...or right...or anything.