Age Correlations, step by step.

quote:

---

If you think the "rules" in the past were significantly different to today, then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for it.

---

Of course, assuming you had evidence they were the same, not just assumptions! You don't. therefore on your shouldlers lies the burden of proof.

quote:

---

Physical laws have not been observed to change since we have been looking,..

---

Here we agree. But let's face it that wasn't long!

quote:

---

In fact, evidence abounds that they have not. ..

---

None so far presented. None will ever be presented, the emperor has no clothes. Get it?

quote:

---

Instead we see multiple lines of corroborating independent evidence reliant on independent phenomena for their existence.

---

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. What says they were yearly save present based linkage? Nothing. Zilch. Zippo. Nyada.

quote:

---

Well, if you can't have any idea how they worked, how can you also have an idea how they worked? Either we do or don't.

---

Some of us do. Science can't. If we stick to science we leave it unknown, and in the dark.

quote:

---

sorry but you seem to want your cake and to be able to eat it ...

---

I can do that, because I do not depend on science when it comes to exploring beyond the fishbowl.

I got their number.

quote:

---

There is no difference between our observations of the recent past and the deep past. All observations are indirect measures of the effects of past events.

---

That's what you think. Why? Because you base all deep past stuff on present observations, which is the point here. Thanks for proving it.

quote:

---

Noether's theorem, which establishes that "the laws of physics were the same in the past" is the same as "energy is conserved". You are, therefore, arguing that energy is not conserved . yet we have never detected a case in which energy is nto conserved.

---

Of course you haven't. You live in the fishbowl of the physical universe. That is how it works. We know this. Now, how did it work, and how will it work?

quote:

---

I suspect that your casual dismissal of all evidence as unsubstiated, and your refusal to present evidence for your claims after repoeated requests, will arouose the moderator's wrath.

---

I dismiss NO evidence, I accept it all, save your wet dreams of some non existant past that you cannot evidence, whether the mods dig it or not.

quote:

---

Frantic hand-waving is not suitable "defense" of your claims.

---

Amen. Now stop doing that irratating thing, and get down, and support your wacked out past claims. Our patience is limited.

quote:

---

What the heck is a weekly ring?

​

You obviously have different growth rates during daylight hours than during nightime hours, and this shows up in the corals as daily rings -- this is, after all, your excuse for annual tree rings being days instead of years.

​

You also have more growth per day during summer days than during winter days, so the areas of summer days are wider than the areas of winter days, and this shows up in the corals (and trees etc) as annual rings.

---

We now have these things, of course. So? Try and focus here, we are talking about the deep deep past.

quote:

---

We observe the pattern of growth in the corals today, observing both the daily and the annual growth patterns. We see the same kind of growth in corals of the past.

---

Same in that they grew. Yes. Now, what other similarity can you nail down?

quote:

---

1) It demonstrates that days AND years were involved at the time of the coral rings being made, just as they are today by the same kinds of corals, and your concept has yet to propose a mechanism that "mimics" this daily growth cycle.

---

No, it demonstrates they grew. If we look at the differnces in the two states, former and latter, the rest is easy.

quote:

---

(2) It demonstrates that these daily rings also occurred during the winter season, which you claim was night and your concept is void of any mechanism to "mimic" different rates of growth in a cyclic pattern during the dark hours.

---

This is a bit cryptic. I claim that night was winter, you say???? No, I never mentioned any such thing. But we can say the winters were different.

quote:

---

C14 is made by radioactive process, without radioactive process to make it, it does not exist.

---

Not now, no. C14 is a naturally radioactive carbon isotope. What was it before it was radioactive? It was something else, not decaying. You simply look at it's present state, which is decay, and radioactive, and ASSUME it always was so. NO. no no no.

quote:

---

There is no "error" in the dating curve -- it keeps producing dates that agree with the tree rings.

---

No, only with the old ages take on things. The rings themselves directly, only go back what, less than 5000 years, if we pretend each ring was a year?

quote:

---

For your concept to work the has to be an error that isn't there -- and that is why you are wrong.

---

No. You just can't see the error. If you explained it better, I might be able to help. Here is the formula. Trees grew yearly rings (possibly with minimal exceptions due to climate, etc) since 4400 years ago. Any rings more than this grew in the former conditions. This means that we could have had the whole tree in a week, rings and all. See how the dating you used falls by the wayside?Now, beyond 4400 years, what is your exact point, if you have any, say, with the Joshua tree?

quote:

---

BUT, there is evidence that some of the values we consider "constant" have changed over time.

​

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?...
{Shortened display form of URL. - Adminnemooseus}

---

Ha. That is a good one.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2006 01:13 PM

quote:

---

Laws of physics" and "values we consider constant" are often not the same thing. FWIW, the jury is still out on those alleged changes in alpha, but the latest WMAP measurements indicate pretty strongly that alpha has not changed.

---

Since when? That is the question. --Since the universe, this temporary physical universe we know, came to be. 4400 years ago.

quote:

---

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with the preponderance of evidence.

---

Interpreted in the old age filter.

Okay, but then how can your position of these difference in the laws of science be falsified?lfen

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? I did present it. READ my last post. What evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?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? But you can't know that you even existed on last wednesday without evidence that the world wasn't created as-is, with everyone having "memories" & the earth having the appearance of age. 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.You can't logically accept the biblical account without first proving last-thursdayism wrong. Well, not without exposing yourself as a hypocrite, anyway.Of course, if the burden of proof is on us to show law constancy. Then the burden of proof is on you to show last thursdayism is false.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-06-2006 04:18 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ball's in your court, son. We've provided support for our claims, and you've made feeble attempts to hand-wave that suppat away. In science we deal with evidence; we're waiting for your evidence for your claims.

Actually we are talking about the very shallow immediate past, up to 8,000 years ago.You concede dating up to 4,400 +/- years ago is valid as a totally linear process back to that point.So we will talk about 4,500 years ago.Tree rings same as at 4,400 years ago, in the same tree no less. Same kind of limited growth during winter months as now, same kind of increased growth during summer months as now.Temperature variations for the last 2000 years by tree-ring chronologies from Polar and Upper Mountain tree line in Siberia This being only 2000 years ago you have to agree, eh?Note analysis of annual tree rings for daily patterns of growth, with variations from climate and seasonal effects. Effects that would not apply to a 'daily' tree ring based on a very long day cycle.Effects that are seen in all the tree rings in the Bristlecone Pines, but especially those in the 4,500 year old tree ring.evo conclusion: it was the same kind of time then as it is now.simple conclusion: (stamps foot) no, it was totally different.Now onto daze ... Same in that they grew in both daily and annual growth patterns entirely consistent with current growth patterns and a continued cycle of days and years as now. Corals are not the only evidence of both these patterns of growth happening:NCCOS Research on Fish Otoliths Yields Key Environmental Clues Observed Growth Patterns from:
Days (from rotation of the earth on it's axis)
Years (from orbit of earth about the sun)Australian Coral Records Research Group, Introduction
Australian Coral Records Research Group, Summary of Presentations Note correlations to climate, annual rings and seasonal patterns within the annual rings.Australian Coral Records Research Group, Coral banding bibliography Observed Growth Patterns from:
Days (from rotation of the earth)
Months (from lunar cycle, moons orbit)
Years (from orbit of earth about the sun)and from the same source Corals only one of "several biological systems" with Observed Growth Patterns from:
Days (from rotation of the earth)
Years (from orbit of earth about the sun) EFFECT OF TIDES ON EARTH'S ROTATION
{Fixed url. - Adminnemooseus}
Observed Growth Patterns from:
Days (from rotation of the earth)
Years (from orbit of earth about the sun)Nice discussion of tides and the astronomical evidence that correlates with the biological. Of course that is evidence that extends into the 'deep' past, millions of years ago, and we are only concerned with the immediate past -- what we agree on and 100 years before that.What we see is a complete correlation of seasons and days within an annual cycle that holds solid for the complete record that we agree on. We see annual rings, we see daily rings, we even see evidence of moon cycles and tidal cycles that are consistent withObserved Growth Patterns from:
Days (from rotation of the earth)
Fortnights (from tidal cycles, 2 max/min cycles per moon orbit)
Months (from lunar cycle, moons orbit)
Years (from orbit of earth about the sun)evo conclusion: it was the same kind of time then as it is now.simple conclusion: (stamps foot, pouts) no, it was totally different. This doesn't explain the correlations of those 4,500 year old tree rings with (a) seasonal patterns of growth, especially during the winter, and (b) radiometric dating from C-14, (c) annual rings from other sources, (d) daily rings within annual rings at 4,500 years ago. Please try to keep your own concept straight. If one (1) simple day = one (1) evo year then the growth ring relationship is {fast growth period} = simple daytime = evo summer, and {slow growth period} = simple nighttime = evo winter.This is your concept, after all.Now explain cyclic growth patterns during the nighttime in a system that needs sunlight to grow.You could have tried to use the moon to provide such {evo daily} cyclic patterns during the {nighttime=winter}, changing it's orbit to be a 24 hour cycle instead of 29 +/- day cycle, but this doesn't explain the {evo daily} cyclic patterns during the {daytime=summer}, and you can't explain the cyclic patterns that match monthly moon orbits and fortnight tide fluctuations caused by monthly moon orbits.evo conclusion: it was the same kind of time then as it is now.simple conclusion: (stamps foot, pouts, jumps on hat) NO. no no no. it was totally different.Notice something else:For days to last long enough for a whole years worth of growth, you have to slow down the rotation of the earth in the past, while evidence shows the opposite trend -- rotation was faster in the past, and that this is totally consistent with all astronomical observations of our system.Slowing days down does not affect the length of the year because that is dependent on the orbit of the earth around the sun, so you could have a day that is the equivalent of 365 +/- evo days and the length of the year would be totally unaffected -- the age in years of the data would still be valid.
A change in the length of a year in this imaginary past would not change the total increments of time that would otherwise go into measuring a year ... if an evo year is 365.24daysx24hoursx60minutesx60seconds = 31,556,736secondsThen any interval of 31,556,736 seconds would still be measured as a year in evo time regardless of the rotation of the earth and the orbit of the earth about the sun. This is the time measured by any of the radioactive element techniques.This is the time measured by the C-14 technique for the 4,500 year old tree ring within the still living (when cut down) 'Josua' Tree.evo conclusion: it was the same kind of time then as it is now.simple conclusion: (stamps foot, pouts, jumps on hat, plugs ears with fingers, shouts) NO. no no no. NO!!! it was totally different.Finally, your basic concept -- that at some point in the past {everything} was totally different -- does not mean that only one possibility exists for that previous time. What it means is that every possibility that has ever been thought of and all those that have not yet been though of have an equal possibility. Last-Thursdayism is just as valid as the Norse mythology and any other religion or fantasy. Pick a book on any shelf in the science fiction\fantasy section ... gosh: it really could be!!! it's so simple!!!!All you have done is swept all the evidence for anything off the table. {Total Denial of Everything} is not a basis for belief or science.Enjoy.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2006 01:27 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

More importantly, how can your position that the past and future will be in the current state be falsified?

quote:

---

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?

quote:

---

I did present it. READ my last post.

---

Reread it, and try to comprehend where you assume assume assume. Then try to look at what the evidence really actually is, and how your colored interpretation is not the only one.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

You deal in evidence, that is good news. Move beyond the assumptions of a past that was the same and into evidence it was. (Not in a group of other assumptions it was the same but actual evidence)