New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[dad]

Evidence?

It can be questioned by science because science requires and demands evidence.

Science cannot go there. Scripture is evidence for millions of people.

It does that pretty well. Such as, we have learned the ground amd ancient ice caps are records of the past, including traces of the environment from thousands and millions of years ago amd preserving the remains of some that lived.

No. You have viewed these things as if the present nature is responsible for all of them. That is religion.

That makes no sense as to why god would set up a system that would inevitably mislead people.

Science has deceived people by trying to explain the creation away by claiming the presentnaturedunnit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know, but you just can't post it because people are not nice enough to you. We get it. I am not here to force you to admit you actually have nothing, we see that in the posts.

I can and I have, but at my discretion. You lost the ability to demand evidence. I am changing the rule slightly. No need to put your name on it. So now it is merely Rule Number One. When a poster shows that they either do not understand the concept of evidence, or lie about evidence (and we will assume that they do not know here, it is rather difficult to prove a lie and calling someone a liar is against the rules) that person no longer has the rights to demand evidence until they demonstrate that they understand the topic. Offers to help learn what is and what is not evidence are required when using this rule.

There, now you should not feel so singled out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do.

No, if you did it would appear that you were lying and I do not think that you were lying. I could explain this for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science cannot go there. Scripture is evidence for millions of people.

It is not reliable evidence.

No. You have viewed these things as if the present nature is responsible for all of them. That is religion.

No, religion is your flaw Now you need to show that this is a religion. And since you do not understand what is and what is not evidence that will probably be impossible for you.

Science has deceived people by trying to explain the creation away by claiming the presentnaturedunnit.

No, science uses testable models. If they are wrong they can be shown to be wrong. What reasonable test, that means testing your beliefs upon their own merits, not based on something outside of your beliefs, could show them to be wrong? If you cannot think of a reasonable test then you do not have evidence. You have an ad hoc explanation.

 

[dad]

ll you need to do is provide objective verifiable evidence concerning your claims.

You di not read my previous post. There are ten known trees far older then several thousand years.

We have ancient trees counted by annual growth rings up ~89,000 years; A quaking Aspen in Fishlake National Forest, Utah, USA that is still alive. 10 Oldest Trees in the World (Updated 2019)

"Aspen trees usually do not live more than 150 years, though they may persist more than 200 years"

How Aspens Grow

Feel free to discuss and post how you date the grove! Hahahaha

In case you fall into your usual pattern or cut and pasting (parroting) the same thing without honest debate, I am including a quote here on the topic.

"Given its size, it may also be very old, perhaps 80,000 years, but good dating of the time the original, tiny seed germinated and established this clone lies beyond current scientific capabilities. Plausible estimates have been offered ranging from several thousands to a million years in age, although recent molecular work argues that these may be overestimates (Barnes 1975; Mock et al. 2008). Whatever its age, Pando certainly represents one of the most remarkable individuals among all living organisms."

Case Study: The Glorious, Golden, and Gigantic Quaking Aspen | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[dad]

No, if you did it would appear that you were lying and I do not think that you were lying. I could explain this for you.

Your vague misconceptions ring hollow.

 

[dad]

It is not reliable evidence..

The most reliable on earth actually.Compare that to exactly NO evidence about anything spiritual at all from science. Hahahahaha

 

[dad]

How do you know? Where you there?

That question could be translated as 'how do we know Jesus and His word are true'?
There are many ways such as fulfilled prophecy and direct testing in lives.

The trees could have been planted fully mature with fruit already on them. There is no need that the trees grew in a week or the fruit.

? A garden big enough to have all animals on earth in it and for man to live had trees planted that were full-grown? The bible does not say any such thing. In fact, in every instance where things planted are mentioned it is clear it was from seeds. You are grasping at straws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your vague misconceptions ring hollow.

You are making a typical "dad" error. Just because you do not understand something you assume that no one does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The most reliable on earth actually.Compare that to exactly NO evidence about anything spiritual at all from science. Hahahahaha

Sorry, it fails far too often when tested. But you cannot even think of a valid test for it. Your inability to do so is an admission that it is not reliable. Reliable evidence is reliable because it is testable, but does not fail that test.

And remember, you do not understand the concept of evidence. As a result almost any comments you make about the topic will be wrong.

Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence yet?

 

[Heyo]

? A garden big enough to have all animals on earth in it and for man to live had trees planted that were full-grown? The bible does not say any such thing.

You say such a thing. You said that radio isotope testing can't work because things could have been "created" with an isotope ratio that hints at a young age. And now you want to tell me that trees can't have been "created" fully mature with fruits on them?

 

[night912]

Correct, we do not know how nature was then compared to today. Therefore we cannot assign radioactive decay that we have today to then.
Bingo. Science cannot know how it changed. Heck, they do not even know whether it changed or not!

So that means that it can be use because it did not changed.

 

[dad]

You say such a thing. You said that radio isotope testing can't work because things could have been "created" with an isotope ratio that hints at a young age. And now you want to tell me that trees can't have been "created" fully mature with fruits on them?

I said creation is a factor in what ratios we see probably. But so is the different nature in the past. We DO know how fast trees grew in that different past. We do NOT know if there was any radioactive decay.

 

[dad]

So that means that it can be use because it did not changed.

No. It means that history and the bible indicate things have changed. You cannot use the belief nothing changed.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Aspen trees usually do not live more than 150 years, though they may persist more than 200 years"

How Aspens Grow

Feel free to discuss and post how you date the grove! Hahahaha

In case you fall into your usual pattern or cut and pasting (parroting) the same thing without honest debate, I am including a quote here on the topic.

Pando, the Trembling Giant

"Given its size, it may also be very old, perhaps 80,000 years, but good dating of the time the original, tiny seed germinated and established this clone lies beyond current scientific capabilities. Plausible estimates have been offered ranging from several thousands to a million years in age, although recent molecular work argues that these may be overestimates (Barnes 1975; Mock et al. 2008). Whatever its age, Pando certainly represents one of the most remarkable individuals among all living organisms."

Case Study: The Glorious, Golden, and Gigantic Quaking Aspen | Learn Science at Scitable

Actually the ~80,000 is an estimate. and it now ranks as second oldest:



The Trembling Giant, or Pando, is an enormous grove of quaking aspens that take the “forest as a single organism” metaphor and makes it literal: the grove really is a single organism. Each of the approximately 47,000 or so trees in the grove is genetically identical and all the trees share a single root system. While many trees spread through flowering and sexual reproduction, quaking aspens usually reproduce asexually, by sprouting new trees from the expansive lateral root of the parent. The individual trees aren’t individuals but stems of a massive single clone, and this clone is truly massive. “Pando” is a Latin word that translates to “I spread.”

Spanning 107 acres and weighing 6,615 tons, Pando was once thought to be the world’s largest organism (now usurped by thousand-acre fungal mats in Oregon), and is almost certainly the most massive. In terms of other superlatives, the more optimistic estimates of Pando’s age have it as over one million years old, which would easily make it one of the world’s oldest living organisms. Some of the trees in the forest are over 130 years old.

Unfortunately, the future of the giant appears grim. According to Paul Rogers, an ecologist at Utah State University, the Trembling Giant is in danger. While the mature stems of Pando routinely die from the eternal problems of pests and drought, the regenerative roots of the organism that are responsible for Pando’s resilience are under attack as well. Rogers reported a marked absence of juvenile and young stems to replace the older trunks, blaming overgrazing by deer and elk. Without new growth to replace the old, the Trembling Giant is vulnerable to a catastrophic sudden withering and shrinking."

You still have a single tree the:
3. Old Tjikko
Age: 9,550 years
Species: Norway Spruce (Picea abies)
Location: Fulufjället Mountain of Dalarna province in Sweden

. . . and it is only number three.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said creation is a factor in what ratios we see probably. But so is the different nature in the past. We DO know how fast trees grew in that different past. We do NOT know if there was any radioactive decay.

No we do not know trees grow faster in the past. Annual rings in trees have always been annual rings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No we do not know trees grow faster in the past. Annual rings in trees have always been annual rings.

Some species can generate more than one growth ring a year, but from my understanding experts do not use those for dendrochronology The use trees that reliably produces one growth ring a year. Dad's fantasy world requires all sorts of changes of physical laws, many of them contradictory, and he cannot find any evidence for it. His only tactic is to shift the burden of proof and to deny evidence when it is presented.

That is why I developed what is now Rule Number One.

 

[dad]

Actually the ~80,000 is an estimate. and it now ranks as second oldest:

Now show how the grove was dated. Ha

 

[dad]

No we do not know trees grow faster in the past. Annual rings in trees have always been annual rings.

We do know Scripture records it. As for science, you are right, they don't know anything about it.

 

[Heyo]

I said creation is a factor in what ratios we see probably. But so is the different nature in the past. We DO know how fast trees grew in that different past.

How do you know?

We do NOT know if there was any radioactive decay.

Yes, we assume that to be so because there is no evidence of any force or mechanism that would have changed that in the past. Or do you have any?