Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Nobody has ever been able to show that there was a "former nature". It's a fairy tale, like Santa's workshop at the North Pole.

Akshully, all this means is that fallen humanity just can't get it right, whether it's ancient humanity garbling their memories of the Flood or modern humanity misdating ancient cultures. That's why we need the Bible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Correlations Faith, correlations means we have high confidence in the results. Certainly when a single Bristlecone pine is 5,068 years old with no effect of a flood reaching it's mountaintop this means no flood in that period, period.When we also have two independent dendrochronologies from nearby areas and they also (a) match each other, ring for ring except for two missing rings in one lining up with very narrow rings in the other, and (b) match the ages of this single tree, AND not show any effec of a flood reaching their mountaintops, this becomes much more than a single piece of evidence, because it means this covers a wider area than a single specimen.Then we have the two independent oak dendrochronologies that match each other AND the Bristlecone pine dendrochronologies, one from peat marshes in Ireland and one from river valleys in Germany and THEY show no effects of massive floods in their areas, then the only logical conclusion is that no flood occurred in these times.The dendrochronologies extend more than 12,000 years into the past with no visible effect of a massive world wide flood.And they are the tip of the iceberg of layer by layer age measurements.No special training is needed to count layers.Enjoy

No, there's no point in speculating. I've usually put the many-ringed trees in the column against the Flood. There's a pro column and an anti column. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or show nature was the same. Believe what you like.

If trees grew in weeks in the former nature, tree rings have no meaning then as they now would in regards to age. Except bt faith alone.

Do we know for sure how to interpret the very earliest hieroglyphs?

Nothing in your link addresses the issue of what nature the trees grew in. Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature. Ha.

That's dishonest. In real life you don't demand that everything be proven to be the same. You understand that the bus stop will be in the same place as yesterday. You understand that the bus will go to the same places as it did yesterday. If something changes - e.g. the bus route or schedule - you expect evidence to show the changes; you expect new route maps and published schedules.You wouldn't expect the bus company to publish a new schedule every day saying, "Same as yesterday".So why aren't you honest about science? Why do you demand that science document sameness when everywhere else we document only changes.So why don't you be honest and document the changes that you claim?

Demonstrating again your ignorance of what makes a tree ring annual. There are distinct markers for the different seasons of the year.Also demonstrating that you have no idea of the problems with this bind assertion -- like how do you get the 14C levels to match the ring counts, how you get the rings to match the marine and lake varves.AND you need a mechanism that accomplishes these changes in such a way that there is no visible transition.Enoy

Yes, I'm aware that there are various ways to explain how the tree rings could reflect the different environment before the Flood, but I don't think we have enough information to defend that possibility yet. Befpre I erased that post I went ahead and made some conjectures of my own about the different climate and then realized there are too many ways it doesn't hold together, at least with my own knowledge at present.What I then do with the Flood issues is mentally put on one side the arguments that don't support the Flood and put those that do in the column on the other side. I have a lot of arguments that do so I figure a few I can't defend are no big deal, that eventually they can be defended too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's confirmation bias, yet again. You did exactly that with your failed ascension - put enormous weight on what you wanted to believe and ignore what you don't.Some evidence is 'black swan', that is, conclusive; it disproves absolutely an idea. The consilience of multiple dating methods alone is very close to that strength of evidence.In your other pile, you have unproven and just plain stupid invention.

I figure I would have to personally examine the tree rings very closely to arrive at a meaningful theory.Listen, I know the Flood happened, I accept the date of 4500 years ago, so just because I can't explain a given phenomenon says nothing about what really happened.And of course I think I've come up with some blockbuster defenses of the Flood, which once they are recognized make all arguments against it obsolete.

You really, really don't. You can accept the information as it stands because science has been working on it for decades. That's how it works - thousands of experts are trying to find mistakes. But if you really have to you can. But of course you won't. Yes, we know you believe this nonsense but what you believe is irrelevant. This is the dumbest thing of all. You have absolutely nothing that stands up for a moment to objective scrutiny, literally nothing, but because of your previous statement you can't and won't see it.But you could easily test it, try to get something published

The fact that NO creationist has been able to explain those phenomena says something about the viability of the YEC scenario. The fact that creationists make little or no effort to test their preconceived notions is also telling.