Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

No. It was to prevent the CREATED KINDS placed on the ark from dying! Who says all the animals that evolved/adapted from created kinds in the 16 centuries before the flood got to come? After all with the rapid evolution of the former nature there could even have been birds that evolved into dino, or whatever...who knows!?It also makes perfect sense that a limited number of animals (original created kinds only) went onto one single boat!

?? I think I suggested maybe what is now iridium may have been used in some way with the chemical processes set up to dispose of dead flesh and blood etc. If not, then something else was used!However since iridium has a source (science tells us) in the deep earth and space, that is a match for where flood water originated! Regardless of whether it was or was not a part of the clean up materials of that day.

Why would they not...why would they...both are questions above the pay grade and knowledge and depth of present day science!Since trees grew in weeks in the former nature of the bile (also the future nature interestingly) and man lived about 1000 years, and evolving was fast fast fast fast, it seems logical to rule out present genetics! But since science doesn't know, it is a matter of belief not knowledge or present science.

You used the king list! That contains spirit kings, missing and unknown kings!Trying to distance yourself now under the intense fire eh?We must look at the basis for dates and chronology, not how many people believe in ages for whatever reasons!Your tree ring sequence (admit it) involves dead trees and living trees whose rings are matched and added together...no? If a tree used to grow fast that has no value! You can forget rings (and every other so called collaboration) that depends on a present nature, and get down to proving the nature you claim existed did exist!Furniture made from dead trees has zero value unless you prove that they grew slow..in the nature of the present! Any correlating the rings without first proving what nature they grew in is an exercise in blind faith.Yes trees 'breath' carbon and blah blah now. IN THIS nature. So? What you have failed to do is show this nature existed. Instead you proceed as if it did blindly.Your religious correlation/circular reasoning is busted again.

The shocked quartz markings at the crater were what I was talking about.SHOCK METAMORPHISM – Crater ExplorerAnd no, the great extinction of the flood was not my idea. Nor where the bible says the flood waters came from.

Naturally a godless fable would say nothing of the flood. They try to explain things under their religious paradigm. They have no ability to think out of the box.

Thank you again for proving my point that you can't deal with the correlations, as this once again confirms the age of the earth being old old old is still hasn't been refuted. Thank you for confirming what I posted in Message 1215 and again in Message 1226, that creationists are incapable of dealing with the correlations, explaining the details with something other than fantasy, denial and false statements.You have not demonstrated circular reasoning at all (do you even know what it is?). Curiously just making claims proves nothing. Nope. YOU have failed to show even a tid-bit of evidence that there ever was any other nature, and instead blindly assert it with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Creationist "science" at it's best.When you assert something like a different nature, the onus is on you to show that there ever was a different nature, and to support that with objective empirical evidence. All you do is ride in on your one-trick pony and dump a load of shinola assertions that is pure fantasy without a fact to be found. The void sucks your argument away because you failed at the first, failed again every post since, and continue to fail to provide contrary evidence.Without contrary evidence, ALL the evidence known shows natural processes proceeding naturally into the past as far back as we can test and verify. There is no known point at which it changes. You have shown no evidence to think otherwise.AND you have verified this by your failing to even attempt to explain the correlations, even the most basic correlations.The correlations win again.Enjoy

Okay, so you're going to show us how 'upward directed impacts' form by presenting a website that shows no such thing.You attempt to show us 'striations' related to impacts by presenting an article that says nothing about striations.You present a website that you have no capability of discussing.Thank you for confirming that your whole scenario of time, life and geological processes is based on total and unadulterated ignorance. Well, no one else here is professing these notions.In case you didn't notice.

You are evading. Answer the question. Unsupported fake premises.If this is all you have, you make a mockery of YEC. If science doesn't know something, that makes you correct. Is that your logic?Does Arkham know that you are on the loose?

There is no such thing as "created kinds" in the Bible. Genesis 6:20 specifically mentions different kinds of cattle. If there was only one "created kind" that included cattle, there would have been no need for different kinds of cattle on the ark. God did - "every living thing of all flesh" (Genesis 6:19)But this thread is for you to show your ignorance of dating methods. You can show your ignorance of the Bible in another thread.

So, a godless religious paradigm? Are you daft? You have demonstrated that you cannot even define religion. So basically, you cannot even find the box.You still cannot understand, let alone answer the correlations that prove an ancient Earth. Your case is hopeless.

When I show that science doesn't know what nature existed the onus is on them to prove the one they claim existed. Obviously.

The point you ignore is that the evidence of shocked quartz seems to be nothing more than evidence that something hit the rocks real fast...whether from below or above is the question it does not answer. Does it?

To declare the recorded growth rates of tree in the ancient world 'fake' you would need some proof that the current nature existed then. You have none, rendering your claims fake news.

All you show here is that you have not read my previous posts.This has nothing to do with shocked quartz.