|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
?? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
The shocked quartz markings at the crater were what I was talking about.
SHOCK METAMORPHISM – Crater Explorer And no, the great extinction of the flood was not my idea. Nor where the bible says the flood waters came from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
When I show that science doesn't know what nature existed the onus is on them to prove the one they claim existed. Obviously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
How would we know how many kinds of cattle were created?? No one says it was just cows!!! Ha.
In the next chapter after the one you cited we see it clarified. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. As we see they only entered AFTER THEIR KIND! It is not that I do not know all about your religious dating methods, it is that you fail to be able to defend them, or show them to be anything else but beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Yes, science uses it's little criteria (godless belief based physical only, same state past) to manufacture all models.
It interprets the world and life and the universe that way!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I posit that science uses the present nature/laws for models of the past. They do. Try to wiggle out of it all you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
So now we have to believe your religion because you think there is no reason not to!! Ha.
Then you read what the bible says about creation and life and you offer your religion as a reason not to believe that! Bizarre. How about this: if you claim a set of laws/nature existed and build all models of the past upon that claim, you need to darn well prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Look, you spent all your time here going to insane lengths trying to act and interpret tree rings and all things as if there was a same in the past. Never stopping for a moment to prove there was.
That shows that you can't deal with the issue let alone show that the nature you claim existed did exist! You can't show us anything in any of those silly religious rags/peer reviewed papers that even addresses what nature existed, can you? You all engage in a frenzy of activity using the belief nature was the same, as if in a contest as to who can make up the most insane lies that go furthest against God and the creation of God! Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on! You declared, if I recall or some other poster did, that the bible record of fast growing trees was fake. The reason obviously that this was done is because they believe that the nature we see today also existed then. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I have grasped the evidences that you impose the one same belief upon! None of them nor all of them are any better than the one belief they sit on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Anyone can look at cosmology claims of the universe, or science claims of where life came from and when, and see what basis they have and claim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024