Age Correlations, step by step.

One guesses you meant old earth age but some might read you literally.

Simple, 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?Since you seem to be claiming that there was a discontinuity (rather than a gradual change), then it reasonable to think that you concede that current dating methods give accurate results back to the point of that inconsistency. But following that logic, there should be a point where all dating methods suddenly stop correlating, since things before that point do not happen in the same way as they do after that point. Can you show evidence of this? If you can then you've falsified the assumption that things in the past worked in the same way that they do now!But if you can't provide any evidence of this discontinuity then what you're claiming is nothing more than a blind assertion, and that makes you a pretty big hypocrite (since you seem to be deriding people you claim are making blind assertions/assumptions). We have evidence of how things work now, we have no evidence they worked differently in the past, therefore the only logical conclusion (based on current evidence) is that they did not work differently in the past.Now if you were simply stating that things *may* have worked differently in the past then I could live with that, but you're not doing that. You're claiming that they definitely did work differently, when they changed to how they work now, and all this with no evidence whatsoever. Now everyone else is making an inference based on evidence (physical evidence of the universe, which is what we're all hypothesising about). You're making bald assertions based on nothing. Need I say more?

quote:

---

Science does make some assumptions which you don't accept and which are not falsifiable ..

---

Right. So don't lay the falsifiable stuff on my beliefs either, and I won't lay it on yours.

quote:

---

You can't prove to a solipsist that anything else exists. You can't prove to a last thursdayist that the world didn't come into existence last thursday. And you can't prove to a YEC Bibical literalist that that their explanations are false.

---

You can't prove to a same past and futurist that it was different using present same science. Any more than you can prove that it was different. All such claims are belief. Have a good life.

I meant young earth age. It all agrees, if we assume a different past rather than assume a same past. Tree rings agree, radioactive decay, light, etc. The whole package.

quote:

---

Oh, but you are a silly last thursdayist

---

Am not. You are.

I'm not a SillylastthursdayistBut you, on the other hand, as I poited out in post 101, makes use of a logic which is to all effects idistinguishable from that of a Sillylastthursdayist. That's why I see fit to lump your world view with that of sillylastthursdayists...

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.

If you do not agree that your world view is equivalent to lastthursdayism, why don't you go right ahead and point out what the difference is?. I don't see any.

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.

But when the world was created last Thorsday these falsehoods were created with it.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

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. Any normal person would then conclude that what the Bible says cannot be true. One would have to be exceptionally screwed up to maintain that the laws of physics must have been different in the past, just to accomodate the silliness of one book. You even go so far as to sum up a number of impossible things in the Bible, only to conclude that it is not unreasonable to "admit a different past". In my book, it doesn't get anymore unreasonable than that.I don't care if that comes over as an insult. For me, it's just an observation. As far as I'm concerned, you're a certified fruit cake. There's no arguing with you, and I give up. You've won. Now go away.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

relative,Please respond to this post, where you will have the opportunity to back up the following statement as it pertains to evidence of a 6,000 year old earth: MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2006 09:13 AM

---

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

Relative/Simple, 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.You simple say: "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.With freedom to magic up any silly explanation you are still unable to explain anything at all.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.However, that isn't the right answer so 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.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2006 10:33 AM