Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Indeed you have no way of knowing! So make no claims either way. You have then no reason to doubt the different past recorded in history and Scripture are wrong...or right...or anything.

I already explained that no such fossils should exist, because most life and man could not leave such remains probably in the former nature. To demand that there should be such evidence betrays an absence of comprehension of the issues or origins.

Firstly, Oklo shows nothing but an active imagination and propensity to make stuff up. They invented whatever was needed to fit the events and sites into their faity tale scenarios and assumed laws of the past. The magic dunking of the sites miles under the earth and resurfacing as needed are examples of bs run amok.As for the halo business cute little claims you make there. Too bad you have no juice to back em up eh? You rattle off imaginary years based solely on your little imaginary same state past as if they had the least merit in reality. Then you claim the halos show us there was no change without so much as stopping to mention why! What a joke.

The whole site is now underwater so yes, I guess it 'exists'. The issue is not whether there were isotopes that seem to resemble those from a modern nuclear reaction. The issue is what proof or support do you have to show it actually was? The long comical fabricated series of events in imaginary time do not do that.

Let those with eyes see.The Oklo reactor exists. It is on this earth.We have the evidence, we win, once again you are just a loser.

Once again you simply show your utter ignorance.Once again, we have the evidence and you are simply a pathetic loser yet another time.We have DNA evidence from humans that lived at the time of the imaginary Adam as well as from thousands of years before the Garden of Eden.There is no evidence of any former nature; is is just another pathetic carny spiel by the snake oil creationists.Most life did leave evidence and it is only the Biblical Kinds that failed to be able to leave remains.We comprehend the issue of origins and that reality shows the Biblical creation tales are simply myths. Even the Bible show they are myths since the Bible Creation stories are mutually exclusive and contradictory. Even the Bible God characters in the stories describe two different critters.You explained nothing and simply posted sophomoric nonsense and bullshit.

You can count the rings that exist and that gives you a minimum age for the tree.You can also overlap the rings with the techniques of dendrochronology to extend the age of the grove back over 8,000 years ago.This includes standing dead trees that had lived over 7000 years, but we don't know their last year of life. As you have already been told there is a living tree that was measured at 5,065 years old in 2012.But again, we do not need that for the chronology that is made by overlapping different samples by their climate patterns, a process that was duplicated with an entirely different set of tree samples on a nearby mountain.There was an exact match of the climate patterns between the two chronologies for the 5,000 + period of overlap except for two instances when it was so cold year-round that the second chronology showed no ring and the original chronology showed very narrow rings.That is better than 99.96% accuracy. Better than any dates I have seen from creationists ... Says the person with no clue how dendrochronology works and no explanation for the accuracy of the overlaps caused by climate variations. All we need to do is observe that there is no discernible alteration in the way the trees grew.If you disagree with this evidence then it is incumbent on you to provide an alternate explanation for why the 4 different chronologies produce results within 2% error after 8,000 years.What causes the appearance of old age if that is wrong -- how do you explain it. Because (A) that is what the evidence shows and (B) there is no evidence that it wasn't the same around the world and throughout the solar system or even the universe.The onus is on you to show cause and to provide supporting evidence. In this you have failed miserably.Fail #12 Read the thread. It's already done. In spades. It is your task to provide alternatives with supporting evidence and to explain the correlations. Start at Message 1 and stop wasting time.Enjoy

Getting desperate there with the denial bit. It seems you didn't understand what happened there and the details of the evidence.Sadly, for you, ignorance and denial are not refutations of the evidence, they just show you have no counter argument to present. And once again, this information is on the Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? thread, available for anyone who is actually interested in what the evidence shows to read at their leisure, perhaps starting with Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth and continuing through the thread.Who knows, you might even learn something. Feel free to comment on that thread, where I am sure you will fail to deal with the objective empirical evidence presented there.And if you don't, then the joke is still on you, because you will have failed again.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Strawman, no one asked if the sites exist. Get real.

Time wasting empty blather...devoid of content.

quote:

---

You can count the rings that exist and that gives you a minimum age for the tree.

---

Not true unless the rings all grew IN this nature! Gong.

quote:

---

You can also overlap the rings with the techniques of dendrochronology to extend the age of the grove back over 8,000 years ago.

---

Not unless all rings grew in this present state! Gong!
/quote As you have already been told there is a living tree that was measured at 5,065 years old in 2012.[/quote] False. Rings only equal years or seasons as long as the tree was growing in the present nature! You are spinning your wheels here, missing the whole point.

quote:

---

There was an exact match of the climate patterns between the two chronologies for the 5,000 + period of overlap except for two instances when it was so cold year-round that the second chronology showed no ring and the original chronology showed very narrow rings.

---

Doesn't matter if the variations were within the day or week as they would have to be in the former nature.

quote:

---

What causes the appearance of old age if that is wrong -- how do you explain it.

---

Maybe write this down, you keep missing it...BECAUSE the rings were not all grown in this present state! The onus is on you to show cause and to provide supporting evidence for your claimed same nature existing in the far past on earth. In this you have failed miserably.

I read the Oklo fable many times and you can't support it. Give it up!As for your halo thing..I don't believe you. You would have posted the great proof or point in a sentence or two here by now. You got nothing.

Devolution near complete as starman has to deny more and more of reality to sustain his fantasies.Still no evidence for is vapid assertions.Fail #15LOL

Oklo exists, therefore it is evidence.The decay products exist therefore they are evidence.The decay products match those from nuclear reactors today, therefore the processes were the same when they were created as the processes are today.Once again reality says your assertions and position and creationism and young earth are simply bullshit.We have the evidence, we win.Creationism is for losers.

My assertion is that science does not know the state of the past on earth. You help prove that assertion is absolutely true. Thanks for that.