Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Dad, please propose a mechanism, any mechanism, in any former nature you prefer, in which a tree can or would grow multiple rings every day. How does that happen? Was in winter several times daily back then, and trees shed their leaves on the odd hours?
I’m seriously asking - how does that happen?

It took many years for science to figure out how photosynthesis and growth works here in this nature. Why would you expect them or others to know how it works in a different nature?
That is like saying, how does a tree grow new fruit every month, and a different new fruit on the same tree each month as we are told will happen in the future? No one in science knows. Nor does anyone else today. That doesn't mean we could claim it will never happen.
Same with the record of the past. If people live 1000 years or trees grow in weeks we can't say it did not happen. Nor can we say how it happened. Yet when science claims ancient tree rings or isotope ratios (etc) represent things formed in our present nature, they are saying the things I mentioned could not happen.If you want to claim that rules of this present nature applied you need to show us that it existed. Not just believe real hard and model the past on those beliefs!

All the science done by any scientist is recent and in this nature. It is your belief and claim it always existed on earth. You cannot support that. So remember never ever ever to call it science.

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

And we have a plethora of evidence there have been no changes of the magnitude daddy needs to validate his hallucinations. He's already ignored the evidence I posted.

JonF does not mention Noah in Message 1288 that you replied to. There was a great deal of factual information in that post. You ignored all of it.

You don't get to define science.

Looking at that post, I ignored nothing. It is all based on a belief in a same nature in the past. Why ignore that? Prove it!

Nor do you get to use beliefs as a definition for science.

No one cares what you believe. You either have evvidence for the same nature in the past that you use in models or not.

How old is the earth dad? Roughly.

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.

A couple specifics that might help the kid learn would be:The waste products at the Oklo Reactor match the waste products seen in modern reactors.The reactions observed in distant stars match the reactions seen in our local sun.I'm not sure the kid is capable of actually understanding but perhaps he might be capable of understanding that change leaves evidence. If things were different in the past we would see the evidence of such changes.No such evidence has ever been found.

There's quite a bit of evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay rates, which blows young Earth out of the water. Radioactive decay depends on the most fundamental properties of the Universe. If they changed in the past there would be a wide range of detectable side effects. THose side effects aren't there.Physicist Stever Calip wrote a post on talk.origins some time ago listing some of these side effects. Fron The Constancy of Constants, Part 2*:

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.

​

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

---

_________________________
* Either my Internet is whacked out or talkorigins.org and the wayback machine are both down, so that points to Google's cached copy.

I get to use whatever definition the scientists use - and they do not use one that has anything to do with belief.