Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Simply wanted to point out that none of these various "correlations" are a test of time.In other words. You can go through each and every test (core samples, to radiometric sampling) and it's not time that you are testing.Thanks RAZD for the link to this thread. Yet another thread for me to try and keep track of!

First, what is time, that you claim to be testing it?Is it an abstraction? Can abstractions be tested? Is this an extraneous concept? We are talking about testing time right? Why else would we be talking about tree rings?I think that the tree rings are probably one of the better tests. Though it's not a strict test of time, but of tree growth.If the creation model (any of them) is accurate, then the assumption that all trees started as seeds is in error. Meaning that the core sample, could contain years that were placed their by the creator, at the beginning.In other words, the idea, that everything started from seeds is not a testable proposition. Therefore, even though tree rings are probably the best test of the passage of time, it still involves assumptions that have no verification.Contamination of the sample is also an issue. Could be more rings in a year, or less. That's why it's not a test of time.

First, I didn't see a definition of "Time." What is it exactly?Second, I noticed you put "Time" in quotes. Why is that? Like I said:I've not tried to invalidate any data. I am simply pointing out that counting tree rings doesn't count time. It's a simple point. I have said, it's probably the closest one comes though.I'm also pointing out that the "GOD Doesn't play any part of this" Model isn't the only valid way of looking at the data. Disagree, that's fine. Not here to impress anyone.
I do enjoy the debate, and interaction with folks willing to discuss these issues. However, calling the opposing model a "fantasy" is a little like name calling, don't you think?IF you think that a model that includes a deity/creator/beginner is in error, that's fine. But, unless you can discredit or disprove that one exists, then the model has to be taken as equal to the "God plays no part in this..." model.

Not really. Everything you mentioned didn't define Time as being measure, but something else (sun, moon, earth, atoms). Movement through space, and passage of time, from our perspective doesn't define what it is.I found this definition helpful: They help, but "progress of existence and events" still doesn't measure time.
IS time apart of a structure of the universe? If so, what is this structure?
IS time an "intellectual structure"? What ever that's supposed to mean. I've not stated how old the earth is. And to be honest I don't know. I am more skeptical of the claim that millions of years have past than thousands. But, just because I'm skeptical, doesn't mean I'm claiming anything to be true or not.The "demand" for the definition of time is simply to start at the beginning. If it's time we are saying that is tested, what is it we are discussing? What is time?

Wow. I guess I'll analyze the nature of time on my own "time." Not possible.

I was asked about Millions of years not 10,000 years.I said more than once that tree rings are probably the strongest/best test of time.Then I was asked about calibration.If you what you mean by calibration, "large amounts of unsubstantiated extrapolation" then yeah I suppose you have what you wanted.Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true.First, if I learn. I win. If I'm proven wrong. I win. If I'm right, I win. There is no losing in this debate (at least from my perspective).
I'm running from nothing. I made an attempt to start from a simple point, "Testing tree rings/ oscillations /patterns +extrapolation) is not a strict test of time."I expected that maybe, just maybe someone might say, "you know you're right, *strictly speaking*." Because, strictly speaking the past isn't repeatable, and all we're testing are tree rings and things we observe today, and extrapolating these events to the distant past.Oh well. I was wrong.