Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

And ignoring it when it's presented. Message 918 .It hath forthcame.

Perhaps you should demonstrate this rather than repetitiously claim it ad nauseum.And sadly, for you, that doesn't make the evidence invalid, nor does it explain the correlations.You need to move beyond step 1.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Nothing to ignore so far except belief based claims. It is not evidence to claim something based on the belief something existed.So we know radioactive decay existed because...? (hint: not because it now exists)

Tree rings. You try to use the present nature as the basis for how long trees took to grow. If you talk C14, again you use the present nature as the basis for what C14 is all about and it's function and place in nature. Etc etc. Nothing you say varies from this one belief. Ever.

Who said the flood was a change in nature?? No one. The changes came in the days of Peleg, well after the flood.

You're wrong about that too. No surprises there. You seem to be as ignorant of the Bible as you are about everything else.

It's not a belief, it is a tested conclusion. Scientists have tested and tested and tested to find differences between past behavior and current behavior and have found no measurable differences.Denial of this fact does not change the evidence, it is just a mechanism to let you fool yourself. This is what happens with cognitive dissonance when evidence/reality contradicts a strongly held belief. The stronger the dissonance the more you have to deny to maintain the belief.You can fool yourself with your babble, but you are not fooling anyone else.You're a poster child for the failure of creationism to deal with the reality of the world and the universe.Enjoy

If you look at the life span changes, it is in the days of Peleg that we see the graph change.If we look at Noah after the flood, trees still grew fast. If we look at science, we see that a migration from anywhere near the mountains of Ararat for animals doesn't seem to work...etc etc etc.

You cannot show us any correlation so called that does not rest n believing the ature was the same. Tree rings, corals, C14, radioactive dating, etc etc. Not one. You did try to cite the king lists for dates..ha. cough cough.Sorry, you have religion.

Fiction. Fiction. Wow, finally something true. Science shows that there was never a migration of animals from Mt. Ararat to the rest of the world.

Nonsense. The correlations exist regardless of interpretation. The question is, "What is your interpretation?"And you have none.All you have is denial.

Projection.So give us a good reason to reject uniformity.

Nope. Each ring is compared with ones today that show seasonal patterns of growth. That they show matching patterns of seasonal growth means we conclude they are annual rings. Then we test that conclusion with evidence from the past, and when the evidence from the past validates the annual tree ring age, we conclude that the system is accurate in measuring age.No belief involved. Amusingly, you still have not shown that Shaw's chronology is incorrect, so choke on it all you want, the evidence he used was a mixture and it used a consensus of dates from Egyptologists on what the kings list meant and when. This has been pointed out before, but you seem unable or unwilling to understand.Again, however, laughing at the evidence does not change the correlation, which you have yet to explain as other than them both showing the artifacts are from the same age.You have not shown that either one is erroneous in reaching that age, nor how both could reach the same age by two entirely different systems without it being representative of actual old age. Your inability to understand the difference between religion and science is not my problem. This inability is what leads you to false conclusions. Dunning Kruger effect.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Even if those lifespans were true, what has that got to do with changes in nature? Trees never "grew fast".

In this nature we do not live 1000 years. Not the same. You may not declare trees never used to grow fast, to do so is out of ignorance and wilful belief.