Bonky

I think we may be talking past each other. My original statement had to do with the initial analysis of the ice cores way back when. I'm not talking about current or recent research, I'm talking about when scientists first started studying the ice, how would they have any firm age in their mind before investigation? Creationsts on the other hand, MUST start with the idea that at MOST, they have roughly 6000 years [more likely 4500 or so] to work with. From the start, you have a max age you can deal with and you aren't allowed to go beyond that. I think that's a stark difference personally. I would have to look into this deeper, I can't assume that you are correct here. You're suggesting [you could be right] that they are just assuming those dust bands represent a year. They also may have very good reason to believe that they are. If there are good reasons for believing they represent a year, then I don't see a problem. I agree, they would be referring to volcanic events that were recorded by whatever means in the past. Right with many more hundreds of meters to go yet. A global flood isn't a normal event right? Wouldn't we expect to see some sort of change in the deep ocean cores roughly 4400 years ago to support this claim? I don't think you understood my original statement about the ice cores. Based on what we already know about things like sedimentation, climate change, aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems etc....shouldn't we be able to come up with likely signatures in the core that would identify this event?? It was a global flood after all. This is probably the first time in our discussion that I questioned your integrity. On one hand you admit they do talk about larger timescales, then proceed to ignore it and back Oards statement. I don't know if you caught this, but the "Up to 20°C" and the "as little as 1 to 3 years" are in different sentences altogther. If the situation was reversed you would have been crying strawman so fast and so hard you would've pulled muscles. They specifically mention "decades" and intervals that are taking place over a grand timescale of 100,000 years. Oard is either sloppy or he's intentionally misquoting them. At this point, I'll need to see some honesty from you [a trait of a Christian I thought] before we continue. I don't want to waste my time with someone I can't trust to be honest. I really didn't think it would such a slam to your ego to admit that Oard is definitely not representing that particular statement in context.

If I had unlimited power? I would hope that I would make a creature that doesn't have to modify it's body to save it from painful health issues [wisdom teeth etc]. Bonky, I'm not saying they did it because they were somehow blessed with knowledge of the Blood Coagulation Cascade. My point was HOW they knew it and specifically the 8th day. And GOD didn't "suggest it", he said do it then. If you do it before or after, you run a substantial risk of Bleeding to Death. Science elucidated the fact in 20th Century. You're saying they weren't blessed with special knowledge they wouldn't have naturally, then asking me how they knew to do it on the 8th day. I'm not even sure this 8th day claim you're making is sound. We do circumcisions all the time outside of an 8 day window. "bind the sweet influences", "loose the bands".....What do they mean to you Bonky: Close or Really Really Far apart?? It's also 3500 years before the Invention of the Telescope. I read biblical commentary on this from several sources and none of it wrote of this suggesting it was some incredible divine revelation. Most of the scholars talk about how God is asking Job do you have the power to do what God can do? No you don't, so trust in God and allow him to see you through trials etc.

Well if you're concerned about bleeding my suggestion would be to not cut your genitals to begin with. Now some say "It's a good health measure to circumcise", which my response is, that doesn't sound like a good design then does it? I read some Jewish perspective on why God would have suggested the 8th day and it doesn't have anything to do with blood clotting. What I read was that Jewish tradition holds that the first 7 days represent the finished creation of the physical world in 7 days, the 8th transcends the physical world and initiates the child into the Abrahamic covenant. I'm not sure I understand the connection you're trying to make here. I fail to see why this is so miraculous. The bible doesn't mention these two being close in proximity does it? You seem to be imposing meaning to this passage that this passage doesn't actually support.

My prediction would be, if the planet and everything on it truly is young...then we'd find more than one radio metric method that would show this. I mean every single atomic clock that is measured is way off due to external influences? That's sound like an excuse to me.

That's why you can take samples from the region and "calibrate" or make sure you're not taking a sample that has been disturbed by outside influences. You seem to suggest that the scientists in the field aren't aware of these issues that you bring up. Those stupid stupid scientists! http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology/RadDating0.HTM

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates) What you quoted from the encyclopedia is well understood. Carbon dating is only good for dating organic samples less than 60k years old. Potassium argon is able to go way beyond that. So I can understand acknowledging slight variances with the dates given, but trying to sell a 6000 year old earth is to me, not reasonable.

Until we would have evidence that there was any "blackout" I think it's reasonable to assume that the readings we have a fairly accurate. I mean there is a pretty big difference between 4.5 billion years and 6000.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

Right they would realize this because of our scientific understanding of the world. I'm not sure what a "science-type" statement is. I recall that you are very very concerned about observation, testing etc. So these science type statements need to be able to be analyzed in a lab environment right?

That's just it, we're not finding these same specific genetic sequences in lizards, aardvarks and pigeons. In the end, what creationists are asking me to do is to consider that a creator put these sequences there because they benefit the creature. Ok, then show me some insertions/sequences that we share with pigeons or lizards. I find it peculiar that the creator just happened to place this specific benefit into primates but didn't extend it to other creatures. My original intent was not to try to convince people here of common ancestry. It was an attempt to understand another forum member's position better.

So what did the great white shark eat prior to the flood?

Easy to this on an internet messageboard, how well would you do with Hawking in person? Or the average physicist? Translation: This guy is asking me to support my assertions....I can't have that. "I feel"--- based on what? Also, who appointed you Judge over what is or not "Sensible Discussions"? Well if the discussion involves me, you better believe I decide who is worthy of spending time with. It isn't baseless, I've shown above where you make bizarre claims that I think are fanatical. Please show "Scientific Evidence" of: Similarity = Common Decent: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon Step 2: Lit Review Step 3: Hypothesis Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT Step 5: Analyze Data Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis Step 7: Report Results ?? Just because the lug nuts of a Chevy can fit on a Jeep doesn't Ipso Facto mean that they both evolved from a Tin Can 3 Billion years ago. Also, your entire post is an Ad Hominem (Fallacy)---- attacking the person rather than the substance of their arguments. Do you support DNA evidence in the court of law? Or to be used to determine parenthood?

Enoch, from reading your various posts on this forum, I've seen where you not only suggest wild conspiracy theories but you also seem to think that Einstein and Hawking et al are fools. In half of your post you didn't remotely address what I was responding to. I was talking about one specific topic, you address it briefly and then go on about mutations. I don't engage in discussion with just anyone. There are some people that border on or pass over what I call "zealot" category. I feel that you are too close to this to have any sensible discussion.

Interesting. When the bible talks about the "sun standing still", people know [via science] to realize that what the author is describing is that the EARTH stopped. So there are cases when people use scientific knowledge to help interpret scripture.

I'm not sure why it needs to be mutation to qualify as evidence, finding a specific sequence in the same exact location in two animals seems to be in favor of common descent. As far as mutations, almost every mammal on the planet has an enzyme called GULO. This enzyme is used in the production of ascorbic acid [vitamin C]. What's interesting is that guinea pigs are not able to synthesize vitamin C and neither are simians. The difference is, there is a different mutation that caused this for the guinea pigs vs. what is present in simians. One could suggest that we just happened to develop the same mutation, but I think common descent offers a better explanation [provides a real mechanism we know exists].

I'm puzzled as to why you would stop there, the rest of the sentence is "based on analysis of some really long tail plumage."

I'm not an expert in the matter, although radiometric dating does interest me some. It seems that this matter has been looked into: http://www.nist.gov/mml/csd/14c_091410.cfm http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf As an aside, [according to what I've read by experts in the field] if we were to "compact" the 4 billion years of measured radio decay into only a 6000 year window, there is a huge heat and radiation problem to deal with. The Earth would be liquefied by the intense heat generated by that rate of decay.

So if we find specific genetic sequences that show up in two different animals we can confirm that they shared a common ancestor. I would agree myself, I think that's a completely logical conclusion. We have discovered 7 such sequences [ERV's] that humans share with chimpanzees. Now I don't know if you share this same conclusion with humans and chimps, but if you don't, I'd be curious why you support the conclusion in one case but not another.

I'm just curious about something. You seem to support the idea that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry. Is this correct? I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

50 years?...well that's not a very long time at all. With regard to Exodus 21:21, even if so, today we wouldn't tolerate beating anyone. We wouldn't say "It's ok in this case because the slave/servant is his money".

You stated that "no idea" was a proper scientific response to the question "About how old is this tree?". I don't see any misrepresentation. An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.' Mirov, N.T., The Genus Pinus, Ronald Press Co., New York, 1967. Does that sound like an anomaly to you? So you found a species of tree where this isn't uncommon. For many trees it is an anomaly. So it sounds like you would agree that the experts can tell certain growth traits of certain species which would mean they could ACCOUNT for this in their dating analysis. Listen Enoch, I appreciate you wanting to get involved in discussion with folks in this forum and in this thread. I'm not interested in pursuing a discussion with you however. Just by looking at some of your other posts in this forum [statements like "My Presupposition: "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan." ] we don't have near enough common ground to have a fruitful discussion. I hope you'll understand.

So the proper scientific response to the question, "About how old was this tree?" would be "We have no idea". ====================================================================================== Yep, That's Right. You could extrapolate from an Assumption, if inclined. Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon (Verb, as in action). What "action" are you Observing here? When you go ahead and TEST this, what's your Independent Variable....Your Eyelids? Are you trying to trap me here ? It's Tantamount to bringing the pigeons to the cat. How do you know that multiple rings weren't laid down in a year? You don't; Ergo, Assumption. If you disagree, Please put that into the Scientific Method and Validate. What "kind" and How "Old" is this Tree, by the way? Well I don't know of anybody who states that we can date a tree up to the minute it started to sprout leaves. But to suggest that we just have no idea how old a tree is because there might be multiple rings [an anomaly] seems absurd. If you actually look into dendrochronology you'll find out that they actually have methods for detecting these false/missing rings. So do you extend this logic you are proposing to other types of claims, such as historical claims? IE we don't believe things unless we were there to verify it?

So the proper scientific response to the question, "About how old was this tree?" would be "We have no idea".