relative, msg 23 writes:
It makes little difference when, I have heard some guesses there.
It makes 'little difference' only to those who don't want to know if this is correct or not. If you want to believe in a fantasy then it is best not to challenge the foundations of that fantasy eh? If you want to be ignorant you better not look for information.
Why does it not matter? Because all we observe is our universe that works the way it does, and is composed of what it is composed of.
And the only information we have is that it has always behaved the same way, that there are no great forces that change things from time to time. There is no reason to believe that things were ever different.
Ancient corals grew according to conditions then, if the present mimics that pattern in what now is a day cycle, it means only that the conditions are such that this is now how it works.
So you have absolutely no explanation for daily rings inside of annual rings that you (now) claim are {pre-flood day} rings. The best you can come up with is "gosh something else must have happened to (mimic) make it look that way" ...
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot answer the coral daily ring information with your day=annual cycle hypothesis so you have to invent a second mechanism to explain it, a second mechanism that you can't even imagine. You have to invoke "god-did-it" (to fool us).
relative, msg 25 writes:
No, because radioactive decay is a present process, totally inapplicable to the deep past. There was none,
You're not reading the post 'relative' -- you claimed there was no radioactivity in the past, therefore at any time before the {magic day radioactive decay commenced} there was no C-14 to be absorbed in any plants and animals. None, zero, zip. All plants and animals would have grown without an atom of C-14.
Says who? And assuming what?
Says you, assuming your hypothesis is correct.
Irrelevant, as there was no 50,000 years to begin with.
You're not getting the picture. For there to be no C-14 in specimens by evo standards, they have to be 50,000 evo years old -- so if there is no C-14 in the specimens they will date to 50,000+ years old in evo years, regardless of WHY they have no C-14.
This means that if the change from non-radioactivity to radioactivity occurred sometime LESS than 50,000 years ago, there should be a sudden jump in ages at the magic date of radioacitivity -- from say 8,000 years (the end of the bristlecone pine annual ring data) to the null C-14 value of 50,000 years. This should be visible across the board world wide, with absolutely no possible dates between 8,000 (or whatever) years and 50,000 years.
This is your hypothesis, it has been falsified - absolutely - for all data that is based on C-14 AND correlated to annual growth rings (and we've only touched the tip of the iceberg of data with the bristlecone pine).
Again, this assume the light was then the same. In fact the documentation of the bible clearly shows there was plants and light before any stars or sun was made.
No it just assumes that the causes of radioactive C-14 are the same in both cases where the radioactive element has been generated. We are talking about {after the day radioactivity commenced} after all eh? So this has to be after your change in light, gravity, etc.
There are many old age pattern correlations that we could make. There are many young earth correlations as well. All draw on the same facts and present observations.
You're missing the point: there is no sudden change in dating of objects from back to {the day radioactivity commenced} (whether it is 4000 or 8000 or 12000 is irrelevant) and then a sudden jump to 50,000 years. None, zero, zip.
The oldest trees correspond roughly with the time the change happened. I forget but I think the Joshua tree was what, 4700 or whatever years old by the rings. If it was, say, (we could use any number) then, if the change happened fairly suddenly 4400 years ago, it means that there were about 300 rings grown in the former state of the world. That could have taken say, a year, or, perhaps decades. WE don't know if all trees always must have grown as quickly as some could grow.
But the tree rings date consistently with C-14. There is no sudden jump to 50,000 year old rings.
msg 23 again writes:
A change so big, so fundamental, as to affect gravity, light, and the atomic and molecular structures of matter, and etc. reducing the growth rates, and lifespans and other things happened. ... The changes were so fundamental, that lava even cooled very very quickly! This allows rapid continental seperation. It means that relativity is not relative after all, except to the present physical universe.
And yet it left absolutely no evidence of this occurring.
So to recap, going back only 8,000 evo years we have two scenarios:
(1) things happened 8,000 years ago in the same way that they happen today, trees grow annual rings, coral grow daily and annual rings, carbon 14 was made in the atmosphere in the same way it is now and absorbed into plants and animals in the same way that it is now -- there is not a single reason to expect otherwise because the data from multitudes of sources all show the same results ... we'll look at the evidence and find none that is inconsistent with these concepts, and call this the theory of {same-old same-old}.
OR
(2) things were entirely different 8,000 years ago, nothing we know happened the same way back then, birds swam and fish flew, the sun orbited a flat earth, trees grew with their leaves underground and their roots in the air, even the air was different, corals were hypnotized into thinking there were 400 days in a single day, and the blue meanies all lived in argentina ... we'll ignore any and all evidence that invalidates this and call this the {simple theory of everything was different so you can believe whatever you like}
OR
(3) the big change hasn't happened in the data yet, 8,000 years is not long ago enough.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2