Did the Flood really happen?

The age of the Earth and Universe are as close to a fact as science can come. There is so much solid evidence and consilience to do it justice posting in a forum like this. Assuming you aren't familiar with that evidence, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is a good place to begin. That's far from all the evidence but it's a start.I'll be glad to answer any reasonably specific questions you have. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I've provided and explained evidence for the mainstream view. You haven't posted any substantial response, but you have made positive claims. You said you would always provide evidence for your claims. We knew that was false when you wrote it, and we have seen that we were right. You're just making up BS as you go along. You are far too ignorant to have any useful or interesting discussion with you.Bye-bye

Even the Bible doesn't support that.

We've got mountains of evidence that natural processes have not changed in the last 13-ish billion years.You have no idea what we do or do not have.

Oklo reactor. About 1.7 billion years ago.Not that you could understand it or address the implications for your beliefs.

No magic or strange coincidences. Just the same processes we see today acting just as we see today.Producing a mix of isotopes that tell us it was 1.7 billion years ago.Of course your explanation for that is "magic", amirite?

Sure. From Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals: (click to make it larger). The green line is tree rings and the gray and half-gray squares are Cariaco Basin varves. Synchronous Radiocarbon and Climate Shifts During the Last Deglaciation (May require free registatrion. Gray squares.) ¹⁴C Activity and Global Carbon Cycle Changes over the Past 50,000 Years(same free registration, half-gray squares). The 12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak and Pine Tree-Ring Chronology from Central EuropeA Unique Annual Record for Radiocarbon Calibration and Paleoenvironment Reconstructions (green line tree rings).Enjoy.

I linked to the appropriate papers. Read them.In the extraordinarily unlikely eventuality that you really want to understand dendrochronology, see http://www.pbs.org/...xperience-archaeology/dendrochronology and About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You got what you asked for. I posted a relevant part and provided several links in support.I suggest you start with the last two links in my message of this morning.I'll gladly discuss the subject in depth when and if you demonstrate sufficient knowledge to engage in a discussion

I gave you the relevant information.Your different-in-the-past hallucination is not worthy of consideration. As I've pointed out and you've ignored, differences of the sort you need would have repercussions that would echo down the ages and be detectable today. We've looked. Those repercussions aren't there.We don't assume the past was the same. We know the past was the same , based on hundreds of measurements.There no reason to refer to those measurements in every paper. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The Constancy of Constants, Part 2
The author is a physicist.

quote:

---

Frankly, physicists are not, for the most part, interested in silly creationist arguments. But they are interested in basic questions such as whether physical constants or laws change in time -- especially if such changes are proposed by such a great physicist as Dirac. As a result, there has been a great deal of experimental effort to search for such changes. A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich, Physical Review D41 (1990) 1034 and Physical Review D44 (1991) 3096; a more recent reference is Uzan, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 403, available electronically at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340 . Among the phenomena they look at are:

​

• searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
• searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
• ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
• data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
• observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
• the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
• experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
• absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
• laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle;
• searches for geological evidence of "exotic" decays, such as double beta decay of Uranium 238 or the decay of Osmium to Rhenium by electron emission, which are impossible with the present values of basic physical constants but would become possible if these changed;
• laboratory comparisons of atomic clocks that rely on different atomic processes (e.g., fine structure vs. hyperfine transitions);
• analysis of the effect of varying "constants" on primordial nucleosynthesis in the very early Universe.

​

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

---

And we would see the repercussions of that change. In deep space and in the Solar System and on Earth. The partial list of items I posted covers all three of those places.

Fixed it for you.

Prove it (insofar as anything is proven in science). Repetition isn't proof..I've supported my claims. You have no meaningful response.

Nitpick: you mean years. Light-years are a measure of distance.