Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

[sayak83]

? You claim there WERE rates of DECAY in the past on earth? Proof? Why would I assume that unless you had a reason?

Occum's razor. Simplest explanation to be preferred given the available evidence. Since there is no evidence that laws of physics can be different from one time to another, unless there is evidence to contrary, one is logically required to assume that they were the same in the past. The one who believes it was different has the burden of proof to find the evidence that they were different, has to find out what these different laws actually were and how to explain the past in terms of these laws.

 

[shunyadragon]

I reject faith based scenarios labeled as science.


The proving of Scripture is in real lives of people and events through all history. Science is not equipped to even discuss it, let alone disprove it.




Science runs evidences through it's little current physical natural world criteria, so it has no significant falsifying power, or verifying ability for matters pertaining to creation.


Your observations are limited to the present and yet you dare speak of the far past? By what authority?



Science is a creature of THIS present nature. That is it's limits and scope and mandate. Therefore science can support nothing else, or oppose it. By virtue of it's self imposed limits nothing else can be supported by science except this natural physical world and nature. Pretending historical records and experiences of humanity through all ages, or origin issues involving the deep past on earth could or should be subject to that is hypocritical and thick.

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

The rates are great...now. In this present world and nature, atoms behave a certain way. The issue is when you try to apply this to the unknown distant past on earth.

It is apparent you reject the uniformity of natural laws and processes, but all the evidence indicates that the laws of nature, and natural processes are uniform in the history of the earth, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Newtonian science demonstrates your scenario is impossible,

 

[dad]

Occum's razor. Simplest explanation to be preferred given the available evidence. Since there is no evidence that laws of physics can be different from one time to another, unless there is evidence to contrary, one is logically required to assume that they were the same in the past.

Not sure how to break it to you, but no one cares about what you think is preferred or not. The only thing that matters is if you have solid and real evidence for what you claim as part of science! By the way, Occam believed in creation and God. That razor is two edged.

The one who believes it was different has the burden of proof to find the evidence that they were different, has to find out what these different laws actually were and how to explain the past in terms of these laws.

The one who believes it was the same, and uses that belief in models of science about the past has the burden of proof to find the evidence that they were the same. [/QUOTE]

You obviously cannot do so, so you flail around desperately trying to get out of having to support your beliefs and so called science basis. You will not be wiggling out of it, so get used to wearing it.

 

[dad]

It is apparent you reject the uniformity of natural laws and processes, but all the evidence indicates that the laws of nature, and natural processes are uniform in the history of the earth, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Newtonian science demonstrates your scenario is impossible,

Except NO evidence indicates what you say whatsoever. The opposite is true. Science has no proof of a same nature in the far past. You believe in uniformity by pure faith and faith alone. Any evidence you think you have is actually subjected to that belief before being considered!

 

[metis]

The "scientific method", used by scientists the world over, does not rely on "faith", but religion does. For a theist, and I am one, to demand "proof" from science is simply being quite hypocritical.

Also, to use one's religion/denomination as a set of blinders from accepting basic science actually diminishes their religion/denomination by putting it down to the same level of medieval superstition. The real point theists should be dealing with, imo, is not whether evolution has happened (including macro-), as it clearly has, but how or why God caused it to happen that way?

Therefore, if one belongs to a denomination that denies this reality, I highly recommend find one that does because the Truth cannot be relative to the person or the denomination..

 

[shunyadragon]

Except NO evidence indicates what you say whatsoever. The opposite is true. Science has no proof of a same nature in the far past. You believe in uniformity by pure faith and faith alone. Any evidence you think you have is actually subjected to that belief before being considered!

In the case of the 400,000+ years of lamela there is consistent verifiable evidence for continuous uninterrupted lamela that repeat in the same annual sequence without interruption. We can date previous events in history accurately taken place in the past by counting the lamila and chemical analysis of each individual lamela confirming the uniformity of deposition as the deposition occurs annually today.

You have totally failed to provide evidence for an alternative.

Still waiting. . .

 

[tas8831]

No. The correlation in radiometric dates is a matter of belief only and cannot be verified or tested.

Yeah... claims like that are why I had you on ignore...

 

[tas8831]

You do not have a coherent response to the over 400,000 uniform annual lamela deposited in the Japanese lake. No alternate explanation offered.

400,000/6000 = 66.7
Sure - sounds totally feasible that 66 distinct layers are formed every year, 1.25 a week, (even during the flood year)...

 

[tas8831]

In the case of the 400,000+ years of lamela there is consistent verifiable evidence for continuous uninterrupted lamela that repeat in the same annual sequence without interruption. We can date previous events in history accurately taken place in the past by counting the lamila and chemical analysis of each individual lamela confirming the uniformity of deposition as the deposition occurs annually today.

You have totally failed to provide evidence for an alternative.

Still waiting. . .

It is the creationist standard - "you didn't prove X to my personal satisfaction (which you never will for I have pre-decided to reject anything you present), therefore, Y, despite there being ZERO evidence for Y, is totally true".

 

[shunyadragon]

Not sure how to break it to you, but no one cares about what you think is preferred or not. The only thing that matters is if you have solid and real evidence for what you claim as part of science! By the way, Occam believed in creation and God. That razor is two edged.

The one who believes it was the same, and uses that belief in models of science about the past has the burden of proof to find the evidence that they were the same.

You obviously cannot do so, so you flail around desperately trying to get out of having to support your beliefs and so called science basis. You will not be wiggling out of it, so get used to wearing it.

400,000/6000 = 66.7
Sure - sounds totally feasible that 66 distinct layers are formed every year, 1.25 a week, (even during the flood year)...

No, each lamila reflects the seasonal deposition of one year as observed every year. Winter. Spring, Summer and Fall are recorded in each year as observed in recent history, In this lake there are no floods for this lake, only seasonal rainfall patterns, and the lamila only reflect seasonal deposition as observed every year.

 

[dad]

In the case of the 400,000+ years of lamela there is consistent verifiable evidence for continuous uninterrupted lamela that repeat in the same annual sequence without interruption.

? Why should it be interrupted? The only issue is whether earlier layers were laid down in this nature, in which case it would represent yearly layers. If not, then it doesn't. Period. So the question is what nature was the early layers put down in? Either you know, or not. You do not get to say 'look, lots of layers, and they look similar, so they all must be current nature in origin'.
Yous did not even address how they dated the 2 million years! You already said it was not radiometric dating. So, what was it?

We can date previous events in history accurately taken place in the past by counting the lamila and chemical analysis of each individual lamela confirming the uniformity of deposition as the deposition occurs annually today.

Totally irrelevant because all history is post flood and post nature change.

 

[dad]

Yeah... claims like that are why I had you on ignore...

I understand your frustration at being totally unable to defend your beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

? Why should it be interrupted? The only issue is whether earlier layers were laid down in this nature, in which case it would represent yearly layers. If not, then it doesn't. Period. So the question is what nature was the early layers put down in? Either you know, or not. You do not get to say 'look, lots of layers, and they look similar, so they all must be current nature in origin'.

Simply by the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of lamela as documented in many lakes around the world, and objectively research over the past several hundred years.

You have egregiously failed to present any evidence of the contrary,

Yous did not even address how they dated the 2 million years! You already said it was not radiometric dating. So, what was it?

Again, again, again, and again . . .


NOT AT PRESENT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD !!!!!!!!!!

We are addressing the objective verifiable evidence based on stratigraphy.

Totally irrelevant because all history is post flood and post nature change.

We do not have any evidence whatsoever for a world flood in the stratigraphy. We have evidence of local and regional floods of known cause, and that is all.

There is abundant evidence that no such flood occured in the last 10,000 years of history.

 

[dad]

Simply by the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of lamela as documented in many lakes around the world, and objectively research over the past several hundred years.

The last 'several hundred' years is NOT an issue! We know it was the same nature then. NO research shows what nature existed long long ago, you kidding? Get serious.

We are addressing the objective verifiable evidence based on stratigraphy.

When talking about millions of years ago as you do, the evidence required is evidence of what nature existed in which deposits were laid.

We do not have any evidence whatsoever for a world flood in the stratigraphy.

The KT layer. Dig deeper.

We have evidence of local and regional floods of known cause, and that is all.

All post flood probably.

There is abundant evidence that no such flood occured in the last 10,000 years of history.

Don't conflate real years with science time! In science time, the flood was more like 70,000,000 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

? You claim there WERE rates of DECAY in the past on earth? Proof? Why would I assume that unless you had a reason?

dad, you have been given evidence on your thread of a consistency in physical laws. The burden of proof is now upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except NO evidence indicates what you say whatsoever. The opposite is true. Science has no proof of a same nature in the far past. You believe in uniformity by pure faith and faith alone. Any evidence you think you have is actually subjected to that belief before being considered!

That is false. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The last 'several hundred' years is NOT an issue! We know it was the same nature then. NO research shows what nature existed long long ago, you kidding? Get serious.


When talking about millions of years ago as you do, the evidence required is evidence of what nature existed in which deposits were laid.


The KT layer. Dig deeper.



All post flood probably.
Don't conflate real years with science time! In science time, the flood was more like 70,000,000 years ago.

Sorry, no scientific evidence for a flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

The last 'several hundred' years is NOT an issue! We know it was the same nature then. NO research shows what nature existed long long ago, you kidding? Get serious.

Get serious the research is over the past several hundred years. The objective verifiable evidence is the uniformity of the lamela for hundreds of thousands of years, with no other explanation presented based on the evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

? Why should it be interrupted? The only issue is whether earlier layers were laid down in this nature, in which case it would represent yearly layers. If not, then it doesn't. Period. So the question is what nature was the early layers put down in? Either you know, or not. You do not get to say 'look, lots of layers, and they look similar, so they all must be current nature in origin'.
Yous did not even address how they dated the 2 million years! You already said it was not radiometric dating. So, what was it?

Counting annual uniform lamela over a period of over 400,000 years,

Totally irrelevant because all history is post flood and post nature change.

Still waiting . . .

No such evidence for a world flood.