OEC and ID

[Enoch2021]

Let me get this straight, you consider it an attack based on emotion when I view an organization or website with a jaded eye?  I started to have my doubts as a younger man when told about the Paluxy river footprints and the moon dust. I realize to their credit, YECers no longer use this evidence.  But if they can be wrong, I must make very sure they're right now.  And that goes for everyone.  I would be most interested in your ideas in your own words. Your ideas. I am a medicinal chemist actually-- you've probably taken some medications I've helped develop.  You seem to be taking this as a matter of pride and I am going to offer you nothing for that.  

 

 

Let me get this straight, you consider it an attack based on emotion when I view an organization or website with a jaded eye?

 

No I consider it an AD Hominem attack when you dismiss the Information due to "Creationists" and nothing substantive because... that's the definition of it.

 

 

I realize to their credit, YECers no longer use this evidence. But if they can be wrong, I must make very sure they're right now.

 

So what your saying is..... you dismissed the information on the Bristle Cone Pines because "YEC"ers, @ some point in the past, had (in your opinion) faulty arguments concerning the Paluxy River Footprints and Moon Dust?? 

 

 

I would be most interested in your ideas in your own words.

 

 

This speaks VOLUMES!!  How in the World can I give it to you in my own words when I'm not a Dendrochronologist or have any experience in this SPECIFICALLY skilled area? How far would my opinion go concerning a discipline I have no EXPERTISE IN??     Have you ever constructed a Science Research Paper concerning a subject that you had little or no background in but had to construct a postulate or number of postulates.....PARENTHETICALLY CITE References for SUPPORT with a Bibliography or Work CITED page @ the end????

 

You see, We're talking about SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES here not what our favorite colors are or our OPINIONS concerning the game last night.  To establish our postulates, we SUPPORT THEM with CITED REFERENCES so as to be able to defend them against logical and academic scrutiny.  It's purpose is to limit Conjecture Filled Baseless Assertion Parades in an attempt to systematically establish TRUTH.

 

I am a medicinal chemist actually-- you've probably taken some medications

 

 

Most assuredly not; I spent 15 years in the Medical Field.... so I don't take Medications.

 

 

You seem to be taking this as a matter of pride and I am going to offer you nothing for that.

 

 

How in the World would you know that....Special Medical Chemist Mind Powers?  So you Conjure/Assume I'm taking this as a "matter of pride" then conclude that you'll offer me nothing for that?  That's covenient

[gray wolf]

It is too bad you read my original post. I subsequently edited it to be less offensive. I overstepped the boundaries and I apologize for that. Refresh your screen and read that if you will.

[LookingForAnswers]

If you openly admit that you are not  Dendrochronologist or have any experience in this SPECIFICALLY skilled area why when speaking of the subject do you go to a website that has no more experience than you in the subject?  Why not turn to Dendrochronologist themselves?

[Enoch2021]

It is too bad you read my original post. I subsequently edited it to be less offensive. I overstepped the boundaries and I apologize for that. Refresh your screen and read that if you will.

 

Hey Gray,

 

Which post?

 

Personally, I haven't considered any of your posts to be Offensive in any shape, manner, or form.  The AD Hominem wasn't against me....I just wanted to point it out. Have I Ad Hominem'ed any site or sources in the past.......YEP.  For what I felt were good reasons...it's not a big deal but I was called on it and they were correct.  So I had to SUPPORT the statement with the reasons why.....Lesson Learned, and I attempt to not do it anymore.

 

I try my best to keep any personal issues out of any discussion on the forum and just deal with the Subject Matter Information, Exclusively.  And is quite evident from my post history.  Do things get a bit heated.....YEP. 

 

Go back and check the message where I outlined the scenario when people get called on Baseless Assertions that are made.  This happens constantly on these boards....it's rinse repeat, rinse repeat.

 

I've got the cure.....SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT STATEMENTS CLAIMING ANY FACTS or EVIDENCE.  If it's an Opinion, we all have them, then say.....IMHO.  I Don't have an issue with that @ all

 

BUT, if someone comes out with "alleged" facts (Scientific or Otherwise) that are not SUPPORTED that attempt to question or somehow cast a negative light concerning The WORD of GOD then we we'll meet up eventually.....and they will Most Assuredly GET CALLED!!! 

 

If people find that offensive....then they're going to be offended then.

 

If someone comes out with assertions that I feel are in error but they support they're assertions and they're legit and can survive common sense and comprehensive scrutiny then . I can only speak for myself here but I treat those situations as Learning Opportunities Personally and happened throughout my life.  It's one of the techniques employed to arrive @ TRUTH.

 

Just my take

[gray wolf]

I should have posted a link or two that I perused as well, but I dislike doing that. What is Truth, as Pilate so poignantly asked? Lol

[Guest]

If you openly admit that you are not  Dendrochronologist or have any experience in this SPECIFICALLY skilled area why when speaking of the subject do you go to a website that has no more experience than you in the subject?  Why not turn to Dendrochronologist themselves?

 

~

 

Ten Dollar Word For A Two-Bit Idea

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Dendrochronology (from δένδρον, dendron, "tree limb"; χρόνος, khronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) or tree-ring dating, is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

 

(One Little Piggy, Two Little Piggy....)

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier. This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable. The same argument for multiple ring growth in wet years could hold, and even the possible pre-flood greenhouse environment that may have existed on earth may have been a factor. Also, creation had to involve some superficial appearance of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place. Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today. Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory." Even with only minor adjustments in the growth-ring-to-year correlation, most creation scientists would feel quite comfortable with a resulting date of creation in the 6000-7000 B.C. range.

 

Did God preserve the Bristlecone pines, with their unique combination of living and dead wood, as a record of recent creation? We don't know for sure, but dendrochronology is certainly a science that provides facts which evolutionists do not care to publicize. http://www.icr.org/article/381/

 

Strange How Even The Pagan's Numbers Keep Pointing Back To The Bible

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

 

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

 

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

 

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php

 

Ten Thousand Years Indeed

 

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

Love, Joe

[Guest]

Peace be upon you.

 

Yes I am a medicinal chemist.

 

You've probably taken some of the medicines I've helped bring to market.

 

~

 

Because God Is A God Of Mercy

 

Remembering mine affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall. My soul hath them still in remembrance, and is humbled in me. Lamentations 3:19-20

 

He Sends Me Observational Chemists To Help Keep Me Alive

 

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:21-23

 

And I Thank Him So

 

Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest]

I should have posted a link or two that I perused as well, but I dislike doing that. What is Truth, as Pilate so poignantly asked....

 

 

Strange To Hear Pilate Voiced His Question/Statement While He Was Looking Truth In The Eye

 

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

 

It Makes One Weep To Think Of Those Who Will Still Echo Poor Pilate

 

They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him. Psalms 126:5-76

[ARGOSY]

Evolution simply cannot be mixed with creationism or with ID.   It may work in someone's imagination, but the reality is that neither the Bible nor Evolution are smorgasboards from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  

 

You cannot be an evolutionist on your own terms.  At some point, you will need to decide if evolution or the Bible holds the truth.  God doesn't share His glory.   Trying to live with one foot in naturalism and one foot in the Bible simply doesn't work.  Those are two worldviews that stand mutually exclusive to each other.  

 

I just don't think its that important. If someone chooses to believe a day in the bible is symbolic representing 100 million years, and I believe its a  literal 24 hour day its not going to make much difference to the fruits of the spirit in that person's life. What's more important are the fruits of the spirit, love, kindness, joy and peace, patience, long suffering etc.

[ARGOSY]

For those that like to prove things, here is the actual science behind dendrochronology.

 

http://www.geog.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Maxwell%202011-%20comparison%20of%20two-techniques.pdf

 

dendrochronology is a bit deeper than each ring equals one year like the YEC site tired to imply.

 

Also, the quote from Dr Mriv was taken out of context and he did not question the determined age of the trees.  I am trying to find a quote of this that I can use and should have it by the end of the night.

 

The science of dendrochronology is full of faults. They link hanging chronologies with low probability tree ring sequences to their main chronology. However their current computer software recognises those low probability matching sequence as high probability matching sequences. Dendrochronologists themselves point out these problems. So they trust incorrect percentages that a computer throws at them, and they also gain further confidence by matching these sequences to world events (eg volcanoes) that are dated through radiocarbon or thorium dating.

 

It ends of in a vicious circle of circular reasoning, based on the assumption that radiocarbon decay occurred at a similar rate when the magnetic field was a lot stronger.