Age Correlations, step by step.

No a tree can not grow to full size in a few days trees are bound by the fundimental rules of the universe , and to grow involes a massive number of chemical reactions driven by energy exchanges , starting from the action of sunlight on chlorophyl .. ..now there are many limiting factors which mean these reaction can only go at a certain pace , never enought to grow a full sized tree in a few days .. this is sciencefurther a tree ring is a annual growth effect , the boundry being the winter where the tree is dorment and not growing , so if the tree got to full size in a few days you would have one massive tree ring form at the end of the growing year , this ring would be the diameter of the trunk and would clearly stand out from all rings from later years ... seen any examples of this ???perhaps what you should have said is .. in the bible the actions of ( insert your preferd term )caused trees to become full grown , by passing the normal methods of growth , taking the tree outside its natural cycle .now this may have occured .. i was not there so i dont know .., but it does not invalidate tree rings as a measurement system , as it is a total different type of event , with different causes .btw if a tree falls and no one hears it , its cos they are not paying enough attention ...

Do you mean to imply that in the past what we now consider to be the physical laws and constants of the unviverse where different , that the unviverse opertated on a different set of rules ..
Thus the properties of ..say.. a tree.. and how it grew where total different thus fitting the "facts " in the bible of trees growing in a few days WITH a full set of tree rings ?If so you must be able to show how the laws and constants changed .. dare i say evoled .. over time .... was this a natural process or was a outside agentcy involed .. beacaue if you use the outside agency to make the changes you get back to ... cos he/she wills it to happen ..note a tree grown in a universe with different laws and constants would not be viable in our current universe .. it would not be able to follow our rules ..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that since we can't demonstrate that things worked the same in the past as they do now, then we can't have any idea about how things were in the past?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the recent past?..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That we know. I am not a silly last thursdayist.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can say that these laws worked the same as ten minutes ago as they do now, what allows us to do so? What allows us to assume the same physics ten minutes ago and not 10 million years ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------We observed the recent past, not millions of years ago, or the future. We have history. We have many things that we know about the recent past up to thousands of years ago. That's it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this apply to spacial displacement also? Are you also saying that we can't demonstrate that the laws of physics apply equally to the place I am and to the place I am not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I would think that they apply to all our physical universe. But this is according to the bible a temporary universe.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this new-found doubt about the past affect our ability to convict a murderer using forensic evidence? (actually not evidence since we can't trust that physics was the same yesterday.)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It doesn't. Good science is still good. Unless the guy is over 4400 years old.**********************************************************************
sorry but you seem to want your cake and to be able to eat it ...with scienctific methodology we observer the recent past in the same way as we observer the far past .. we no longer take the writen word of a 19th centry historian about the history of Rome .. we challenge it by examining the physical evidence , by critically looking at accounts from that time and later authors , by trying reconstuctions , by using analytical sciences to test things , and we make high demands of the level proof . In recent year much of the accepted history of the roman world has been changed dur to the application of science ....
Now you are saying this only works up to some date you have picked some 4400 years old .. but can you answer the question why it does not work for 4401 years ago .. or 400000 years or 400000000 years .
You are free to say because "a deity" wills it .. but where is you proof ... can you demonstrate this ...
you say your not a silly last thursdayist , but can you offer more evidence that such a person ....as we learn more about "recent" human history , due to better science technology ,we are pushing back the dates for early civilisation further , do we then have to assume that only half the evidence for a civilization is "real" if seems to span 4700 to 4200 ???