|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 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 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: Except the content and OP are belief based only. That is not science. This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum,.. You cannot claim a same nature in the past without evidence. You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was. Offering tree rings as proof of ages as if they were grown in this nature, without showing why or how is religion. Offering to collaborate that with some other belief based feature of a same state past is religion. It was pointed out that all collaborations here are from the same belief! Rather than try and desperately call that science it seems you guys should be addressing the elephant in the room. Dis I not ask razd and others to simply show even one of the supposed correlations that were NOT based on this one belief?! Why are you not capable of doing that? Strange. Edited by creation, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: YOUR claim was that tree rings formed extra fast in your magical flux time fantasy. To bring the data into the squished timescale means condensing everything older than historical records -- which is kind of difficult when those records extend to 2660 BCE or 4,618 years ago and you want the whole timescale to fit inside 4500 years. No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates. https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/timeline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is? Oklo. Great. So the Oklo fable is your defense!!!? So tell us how you know the whole site was dunked miles under the surface of the earth when needed, and then eons later, brought to the surface?? Hint? You can't...you just need it to be so. Correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: That's funny earlier you failred to eben be able to post a detailed picture of tree rings from a tree that had more than 5000 rings!? Now we supposedly can touch them? Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review. Then you have the nerve to accuse others of an inability to debate? Smoke, meet mirror.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
quote: You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was. Science doesn't know. You do not know how far any star is from earth, nor how long light takes to get here from it. You see the light here, hence all reactions and having it obey laws etc is all seen/experienced/done here and only here. That does not address what time is or what time is like far far away.
quote: There are may religions and beliefs, the sad thing is when science pretends to be more.
quote:Such as...?? There would still be rings. quote:Untrue. Imagining time is the same where stars are with no proof is not evidence. Imagining trees grew in this nature is not evidence they did..etc. quote: There is no possibility of discussion of creation without it.
quote: In your invented scenario it was due to groundwater.
quote: Ridiculous. You need evidence for the claim the specific sites underwent this magic dunk/resurfacing. You invented it because your belief based fables required it. Period.
quote: ?? Where are the rings in the stump from exactly 5000 years ago? You offer a pile of junk? If you could give an actual pic of the area in the sample taken from the tree that supposedly represents more than 5000 years (you have failed to do so for years now) you would need to show that said rings grew in this present nature. Face it, you lose.
quote:Ha ha ha. Missing rings. Great. Well, let;s make it easy can you show a good close up of any rings over 4500 years? Ha. Hard to believe creationists used to lose debates. Edited by creation, : No reason given. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Razd asked fishbowl boundary..
Since the fishbowl simply refers to the area man lives and has visited, even with probes, that makes the fishbowl quite big. Beyond this you cannot say time is the same as here. We have only one little observation point in this universe. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
All the so called science fables on origins are made up nonsense. They have no depth. They are about as deep as a fishbowl. You CANNOT discuss what time is like in the far universe because you do not know even what time is here.
You cannot claim anything based on a same nature in the past unless you first prove one existed. The cunningly devised fables that have been criminally called science are ALL based on the same beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
to message 782
Easy to do. Show the method you use to get distance to far stars. It involves time. So when you use fishbowl time as the big measure for everything, assuming time is the same at all points in the universe, you are doing so ignorantly and with zero basis. As for so called dating methods, they all use the present as the key to the past. They all use the present nature as the basis to extrapolate back..via radioactive decay, tree growth...etc etc etc. This is religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
to post 783
Logic based on beliefs is religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
to post 781
All so called correlations are based on the same belief...you pick one. Tree rings...starlight...decay...fossils...etc. Bring it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
ok
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
The correlations on earth all are based on present nature. The stuff about the far universe is all based on time being the same there also. Yes distances to stars also is based on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Yes, give or take some hundreds of years the earth was created around that long ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Easy. When you assume slow deposition or growth for several items, naturally you get old ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I heard about 4500 but there is room for interpretive difference.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024