relative,
You can count ice layers back to major eruptions that can be dated radiometrically. It's a fact, not an assumption. There is also both ice core & dendrochronological evidence of climate change. Even seabed cores tell the same story. Why do different lines of evidence agree?
If you mean beyond 4400 years, all things also agree with the different past young earth dates, why? Can you explain this?
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?
What evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?
What evidence do you have they worked the same? None.
Another non-answer.
You said:
quote:
But the evidence swings both ways. I can wow over it my way as well, and it all comes up young earth. For example, tree rings. Trees grew in days in the past. The trees had rings.
So I ask again, "what evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?"
You said you had evidence that tree rings were daily in the past. Where?
What evidence do you have at all that physical laws differed in the past? What evidence do you have at all that the earth is 6,000 years old?
NO evidence the laws were the same. No scientific evidence either way. That is what counts. That is the Achilles heel of old age belief.
ANOTHER non-answer. 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.
So, I repeat myself for a third time & ask what evidence you have for a 6,000 year old earth?
So if you think earth age determinations are moot without first proving that physical laws are constants, in order to accept Jesus existing 2,000 years ago, you have to show you weren't created this week. Otherwise you are just making assumptions.
No, proof beyond reasonable doubt is readily available we were here more than a week. The reason deep age determinations are moot is because they go beyond reason, evidence, observations, testings, documentation, witnesses, etc. They rest on the limb of pure assumption.
As far as you have explained, old earth age determination is unreasonable because physical law constancy hasn't been proven. In fact there is evidence for it, the correlation of different dating methods that are based on different physical phenomenon. If a physical law had altered, then the dates would not correlate, they would skew the more the constant altered. The fact that this is not the case indicates that the constants are exactly that. Old age determinations are therefore "reasonable", based on "evidence" & "observation". And is most definately not "pure assumption".
But I digress. This is a test of your logical consistency. You can't have it both ways; where everybody else must disprove all possibles that may skew their conclusions, but you hold yourself to a different standard & don't have to do this.
I'll spell it out again:
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 & must evidentially disprove last thurdayism before he can hold anything as being actually true last wednesday.
The logic is the same, there is no wriggling out of it, you must either:
1/ Reject as false everything that occurred last wednesday, including all of your religious "events" that you hold as being true;
2/ Or admit to being a hypocrite.
The crux issue is whether having to disprove all possible things that could potentially counter a theory is actually a reasonable requirement, before we can even begin to accept that theory. As you are discovering, it is not.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
