Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

It's not the multiplicity of ages as it is the fact that the stuff that came out, no matter where or when, all had small, if even detectable, levels of iridium.

Now you are thinking like a YEC.

No, creation, you have grasped nothing but your own misinterpretations of some hand-scratched scrolls of 3000 year-old goat herder’s fantasies.You grasp nothing of science, of evidence, of logic, of critical thought.We look out into the heavens and we see nature operate the same billions of lightyears away (which means billions of years ago) as we see it operate on this planet today. If the fine structure constant or the electron mass or e or c or any of the other physical constants were appreciably different over there or way back then, then we KNOW with extreme fidelity, that we would not see the results we witness.The nature of this universe has been quite the same everywhere for the past 10 billion + years, let alone the past 10,000 years here on Earth. The multiple lines of evidence discovered over the last centuries assures this fact to an extreme level of confidence.Your myth-based musings need a level of majik, like interstellar bathtubs full of iridium-infused holy water or asteroid impact craters created from inside the planet, not just implausible but impossible anywhere in this universe.Even worse, given all the thousands of data points of real evidence we have discovered far outweigh your goat-herder fables with their total lack of ANY evidence whatsoever.You lost every point you have tried to make on behalf of your silly delusions before you even started posting on this board. And in continuing to argue, disingenuously, against reality you have shown all creation that you grasp nothing at all.[ABE] And now you're gone. What a waste of electrons.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The evidence says something quite different. How do you know the iridium was with the water? Do you know of some way to test iridium to determine if it was wet? How do you know the water was even there in that quantity at that time? Your goat-herder scrolls? Is that all the "evidence" you can present?You lose. List any volcanologist. David A. Johnston for one. Husband and wife team Maurice and Katia Krafft for two more. No, these events were millions of years ago, not thousands and the scientific study of the remains that these events left behind has only been rigorous for the past few centuries.I win on both counts. Of course. I am not afraid of my ignorance of a whole slew of stuff. That's why I rely on a whole world of experts in every facet of human intellectual study using scientific methods to find, compare and argue facts to arrive at solid conclusions.Unlike you, I suppose, I don't go to an astrologist for a hurt tummy nor to a holy shrine for financial advice. I know real experts who actually know what they are talking about. These experts aren't hiding. You are just (willfully) blind. Lift the scales from your eyes, creation. The only thing you have demolished here, creation, is your own intellectual reputation. K-T extinction was caused by massive environmental upheaval as a result of a 15 kilometer high mountain hitting the Yucatan at about 15-20 km/s. We KNOW this because, unlike your blind uneducated opinion, this thing has been studied in extreme detail over the last 40 years by hundreds of trained really smart folks.This is fact and all your bluster and wishful thinking to shoehorn your ancient goat-herder myths into the picture fail miserably. Sure I am. I have this whole planet full of professionals, experts, scientists all, that have shown the whole world the evidence, real solid on-the-ground, in-the-ground, above-the-ground evidence that your flud is fictitious and that the iridium came to the K-T boundary layer in a big honking space rock, while you present no evidence at all. None.You lose again. Doesn't it get tiring for you? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

As the available evidence shows, the same physics, the same "nature", operates both our fishbowl and the rest of the universe. This fishbowl is just one small part of a grander universe all operating, apparently, from the same universal rules. And you can't show us anything different. We're pretty smart fish. We cannot insult what isn't there.It is not the ancient goat herders of 3000 years ago who made up stories in an attempt to fathom the workings of this world with their limited-to-non-existent knowledge that I insult, it is those in the present whose own intellect, in the face of 3000 years of advancing human knowledge, is so limited they believe the ancient goat herder stories as if these stories were the pinnacle of human knowledge. Like the knowledge acquired in the last 3000 years by this species is nothing but some grand conspiracy against the lesser knowledge of the bronze age instead of an advancing correction to that knowledge.I insult you, not them.[abe] You really need to stop pissing off Phat.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Because we have no reason (evidence) to suppose otherwise. If you have such evidence then present it here.

Of course we do. Our evidence is this:There is NO evidence that "nature" *did* changed any time in the last 13.7 billion years.Without there being some evidence of this change you keep going on about why should we just assume it did? Because it makes your evil religious delusions palpable in your tiny little mind?Rejected.We say it didn't change because there is no evidence that it did.You say it changed? Why? Based on what? Show your evidence.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

That's right, bunkie. Puts your little mind into a tail spin doesn't it.In science, what isn't there can be just as significant as what is.Don't think too hard on that. Wouldn't want you to strain something.You still have no evidence to suggest nature changed in any way at any time.Your only reason for insisting it did, other than to make yourself look silly, is because it fits your evil religious narrative.

Yeah, I didn't think you would comprehend my answer.Fortunately my lack of evidence for a change in nature outweighs your lack of evidence that it did change.The only conclusion possible is that nature did not change.Have fun thinking that one through.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You still haven't figured out how something that isn't there could be as significant as something that is. That's ok. Intellect is not in everyone's skill set.Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change happened. So, whether you care to recognize it or not, there is a BIG data point against your contention that "the nature" did change enough to effect tree ring growth thousands of years ago.You do remember this argument you put forward some time ago, right?Well, now it's your turn.Where is your evidence tree ring growth was in any way altered by this change in nature thousands of years ago?

That's just the point, dad. There is plenty of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past. The effects and results of natures consistent operation in the past is precisely what we expect it to be. There are no ... as in none ... effects or results that differed in the past from the same operations of nature we see today.If nature changed her processes 10 thousand years ago or 100 million years ago or whenever, we would see the differences. We don't. That lack of evidence of a change says it didn't change.No one can say nature operated different in the past from the way it operates now. You have no evidence of a change because there isn't any. That lack of evidence for a change is because it did not change. Without evidence you have nothing.Just like your creation myth, your talking snake and your idiot flud, some change in "the nature" a long time ago did not happen.

Your twisted religious bullshit not withstanding you have no evidence of any faster nature in the past. Your reliance on some old fairy tale myths from thousands of years ago is not real. It is not evidence of anything but your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills.Your evidence, your bible myths, your fairy tales, are rejected.You have nothing.

I didn't. Message 1352You're just too intellectually blind to recognize it.Again, you uphold the stereotype of the inane religionist. What records would those be? Your book of errant goat herder myths?Only the most brain dead religiously servile sycophant would actually believe that crap.No change in nature happened. You have nothing.

There is no other nature. Not that anyone can show. Without evidence of this other nature having existed in the past then there is no reason to hypothesize that it did.This other nature is *your* contention.Do you have such evidence? If not then trees grew then at the same rate as now and you cannot show otherwise.The burden of proof is on you.

Creationist illogic. You can not be trusted with evidence. You can not do science.Unless you can show otherwise there exists no reason, no facts in evidence, to suppose the past operations of physics, nature, differed in any way from today.
There is no reason to question the consistency of the natural processes through time. There must be reasons to entertain such changes and you provide none.Thus, outside you delusions such differences did not exist. The passage of time, the decay of radioactive elements, the growth of trees, is all the same today as they were 10,000, 10 million, 4.5 billion and 13.75 billion years ago.How do you explain this difference in nature? How/when did this change happen? Without answering these questions you cannot use this fantasy to explain your religious dogma.You still have nothing.