Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

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.

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.

Naturally if trees grew fast they would also have matching patterns of rings in a given area. That tells us nothing of what nature existed.As for Shaw's chronology you offered, that included king lists, face it, that is a joke. You can't justify dates by king lists. Period.Trying to make tree ring patterns jive with king lists is a joke. The underlying premise for doing so is your same ol same ol same state past nature belief. Ho hum.
Religion.

You need not reject your beliefs. You simply need to admit they are beliefs. I have my own, thanks.

The correlations lose meaning when they only correlate in your head. You have simply tried to offer your fantasy same state nature in the past belief as the reason we see patterns in nature now. Absurd.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Actually look at the graph.https://image.slidesharecdn.com/...ord-of-god-team-1-728.jpgIf the nature change was in the days of Peleg, who was born they say 101 years after the flood, then no one lived more than a few hundred years plus after that.Those few born before the change may have lived an longer after this time. If Shem lived, say about 500 years after the flood, that would be only about say, 395 years after the nature change. If the change happened in the days of Peleg and Peleg lived 239 years, then Shem only lived some 160 years over the new normal life spans. Presumably, being born in the former nature would have impacted his life span. But the graph is clear, and it is in the days of Peleg we get the leveling off and drop to today's levels.You are in no position to call the recorded life spans fiction.As for the migration of animals, if the land was together at that time, it is possible!

What proof do you have Peleg was fiction?Who says he was born a certain number of years after the flood? The chronologies of the bible, and scholars.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Saying the word reality does not help your religion.

Show some scholars of your own that say Noah never really lived then. Yur whining grows tiresome.

Your criteria then is that one cannot prove something is fiction so it is false. OK.That leaves your religion in the dumps.

quote:

---

they would much more likely have wider rings rather than multiple rings
if they did have multiple rings, then they would not likely have seasonal sections of the rings

---

You are telling us how rings would have grown in a different state you know nothing about. So why would rings be wider in this different nature exactly??

quote:

---

if they did appear like annual rings, then there would need to be climate changes consistent with summer and winter periods occurring multiple times a day.

---

No problem. There were different parts of a day and week. Day and night...cool of the day...maybe times when the mist watered...etc.

quote:

---

This is not recorded in any history or religious or any other document, which means you are making it up to bolster your belief.

---

Wrong. No one says there was even any writing before Babel. Possibly men started to need to have written communication after that, and if we look at Egypt, we see they almost started by drawing pictures! Ha.History is after the change.The only history we have that is of merit for that time is God's account. Even so, there are some traces of a different world in very ancient history, for example they remember a time when life spans were long and spirits lived with men. (even in the king list they list spirit gods as the first kings)In Sumerian lists, we see super long life spans also. (of course pagan records are not accurate but we can glean basic realities of life to some degree from them)

quote:

---

That is not how science is done, this is a science thread and you need to support your position with objective empirical evidence.

---

Science is not done by using your one belief and pasting it onto all things. There IS NO science that covers the former nature, science exists and deals oly with this one.

quote:

---

In other words you have no answer to how the Egyptian chronology was modified by a different nature yet still correlates with the tree rings for the same measured age of the artifacts.

---

The artifacts are from the same general time, so however trees grew then would leave a similar pattern. Obviously. Your religious imposition of what C14 would have meant, and rings meant etc is not science.

quote:

---

This is a science thread, and denial of evidence is not a scientific argument.

---

Nothing to deny. The rings are real. The C14 is real. Now your spirit kings in the list you offer as scientific evidence...well, is that really science? The meaning you try to fanatically attribute to the rings and carbon of the far past is totally belief based. Then you hypocritically accuse others of not doing science. Shame.

quote:

---

The differences between this and the Egyptian Kings List are:

​

We know which Egyptian kings actually lived,

---

Really? No difference of opinion on whether some lived, like the spirit kings? Let's remember that the king list was scrawled by some unknown person on the back of an actual document.There is no way to check the unknown scrawler, he may have been a lunatic part time kitchen help for all we know. Then there is the missing fragments..etc etc etc. How dare you offer that in a science forum!

quote:

---

We know how long these kings lived from documents in their tombs,

---

Some..yes. Tell us where to find the tomb of a spirit king? How can you verify the many centuries the Sumerian list claimed for some kings?"The papyrus was a tax roll, but on its back is written a list of rulers of Egypt. It includes the mythical kings such as gods, demi-gods, and spirits, as well as human kings. As the papyrus was reused for the tax roll, it shows the list was not of great formal importance to the writer..."Turin King List - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaApparently they don't even know who the first king was."Traditionally, Menes was considered the first king of Egypt, although who he was or even if he existed at all remains a matter of controversy. This paper takes a comprehensive look at three questions: (1) Given that Menes is not mentioned in a clearly royal context until the New Kingdom, did he really exist? (2) Why was Menes considered the first king of Egypt? (3) If Menes did exist, who was he: Narmer or Aha?"Who was Menes? - Was he Narmer or Aha?Then of course we have this.."Despite attempts at reconstruction, approximately 50% of the papyrus remains missing. .."Turin King List - WikipediaYou make it sound like they have the times and tombs for each. Deceptive nonsense.Here is an example from some columns"Forth Column
(First Intermediate Period)
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
Nitiqrty (Neterikare / Queen Nitocris)
Neferka
Nefer
Ibi
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
Neferkare
Khety
Senenh
[?]
Mer
Shed
H
Fifth Column
(First Intermediate Middle Kingdom)
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
Wah (Montuhotep)
[?]
n
[?]
Nebhepetre (Montuhotep II)
Sankhkare (Montuhotep III)
pib (Amenemhet I)
ka (Senusret I)
[?]
[?]
[?]
[?]
Sixth Column
(Middle Kingdom)
Maakherure (Amenemhat IV)
Khutawyre (Wegaf)
Sekhemkake (Amenemhat V)
Amenemhatre (Amenemhat)
Sehotepibre
Iunfni
Sankhibre (Amenemhat VI)
Smenkare
Sehotepibre
Swadjkare
Nedjemibre
Sobek[hotep]re
m[?]nbw
Auibre
Sedjef[?]kare (Amenemhat (Amenemhat VII)
Amenemhat Sobekhotep
User[?]Re[?]djer
[?]kare
[?]re (intef IV)
[?]ibre Seth (Seth)
Sekhem[?]Re[?]Sobekhotep (Sobekhotep III)
Kha-[sekhem]-Re Nefer-hotep, 11 years
Hwt-Re-her-Hor-sa
Kha-nefer-Re Sobek-hotep"The biggest item in there is question marks!!!! Ha. Some science.

quote:

---

... Egyptian list that is based on actual objective empirical evidence.

---

Hilarious.

Whatever the intention of misusing words, sorry, you may not claim reality.

quote:

---

If you cannot independently demonstrate that something is true, then it is fiction.

---

Until you demonstrate your claims ancient records are not true in any way, those claims remain fiction then.Until you prove a same nature in the past that is used in all models of the past...they remain fiction.Until you demonstrate that time and space in the far universe are the same, such claims are fiction.Got it.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

We do not know what happened with fast growing trees. What would happen in this nature is not the issue. Try to comprehend this..until you first prove there was a same nature, you simply may not use one. Period.Get over it.Multiple rings in a day does leave plenty of time for lots of rings in the hundred plus years after the flood which still had the former nature.Your claim there was no Babel is based on nothing. We are not here to indulge your strange dreams and preferences as to what happened in the past.Scripture is pregnant with fulfilled prophesy and archaeological evidences, and changed actual lives..etc etc. Your wishful empty waving in the wind is of zero consequence.If we look at the tree rings with the carbon also in them (which rings you cannot post a picture of for some reason even years after being asked) we see that C14 also existed in the time after the flood. What relationship in nature it existed in at that time of course is not known. What we see is your attempts to try and make all things conform only to the current nature...i.e. your religion and beliefs.If your so called chronology includes the king lists, sorry, you cannot pick and chose only some parts of it that fit your belief system as convenient.Looking at old Chinese records I notice some people claim that the record shows long lives also near the flood and post flood era. Those long lives (times kings ruled) taper off also as we get closer to the present.The evidence mounts."Ruler Reign Length
Fuhi 115 years 2953-2838 B.C.
ShenNung 120 years 2838-2718 B.C.
Huang Ti 100 years 2698-2598 B.C.
Shao Hao 84 years 2598-2514 B.C.
Chuan Hsi 78 years 2514-2436 B.C.
Ti Kao 70 years 2436-2366 B.C.
Yao 102 years 2357-2255 B.C.
Shun 50 years 2255-2205 B.C."http://s8int.com/phile/page44.htmlAs for the tombs you claim for all the kings...do we have tombs for all the question marks I posted?? Ha. What a joke.As for your dates for the kings...religious drivel. So called dates based on...zzzzzz...radioactive dating. Ho hum. Remember, unless you first demonstrate there was a same nature you may not use one. Really.

You have no tools or abilities or science to look into the time Noah lived. Science cannot comment either way.