Is God a liar, or is the creation account true?

[Desopixi Seilynam]

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Testimony of evidence in God’s creation supporting a 6000 year old earth would go a long way to making this clearer. For example, if nothing in the universe was more than 6000 light years distant, that would be pretty obvious.

Tree rings.
Counting just tree rings for the earths age will not result in millions of years.

It is via radioactive material that scientists come up with millions of years.
One young earth position is that such dating is flawed due to the radioactive material,
and that natural methods of dating, such as counting tree rings, do not result
in millions of years.

 

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

Tree rings.
Counting just tree rings for the earths age will not result in millions of years.

That would require a tree that is millions of years old. That is not a good argument.

Dendrochronology of overlapping live and preserved sample does lead to ages well over 6000 years. You can read more from a Christian/scientist (not “Christian scientist”) here:

https://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/age-earth-tree-rings.php

[Desopixi Seilynam]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That would require a tree that is millions of years old. That is not a good argument.

"" When this preservation works, it usually works quite well, serving to preserve many trees in a given area, providing the basis for crosschecking results. Such age-dating has been done with great confidence and repeatability back to 10,800 years in oak and pine tree in Poland [1], back to 8,900 years in the bristlecone pines in Nevada [2], and back to 7,300 years in the oak trees of Ireland. [3] The significance of this is that they (and others not cited) easily bust the 6000 year threshold. All of them must be refuted if one is to hold onto a 6000 year age.  ""

 

What would it require a tree that is millions of years old?

If we open many trees, or use many trees, as described in the article you gave,
we don't come up with millions of years, natural methods don't produce a million
year timeline, only thousands of years.

If you want to prove millions of years using trees, then you would need
trees that are millions of years old.

But the argument is that the earth, the universe, is not millions of years old,
and sticking to natural methods such tree ring counting proves such,
by the fact that only thousands of years are counted.

It does not have to be just 6k in my opinion.
That they get 7k or even 10k does not matter,
what matters is that they don't get anything like millions.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Testimony of evidence in God’s creation supporting a 6000 year old earth would go a long way to making this clearer. For example, if nothing in the universe was more than 6000 light years distant, that would be pretty obvious.

Which is higher?

1) The unequivocal testimony of the word of God

2) Fallible and changing interpretations of physical evidence about what happened in the past

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Which is higher?

1) The unequivocal testimony of the word of God

2) Fallible and changing interpretations of physical evidence about what happened in the past

In matters of theological importance, God’s written Word. Every time.

Seriously, I asked this earlier, but you never responded. How is the duration and sequence of yoms in Genesis (in and of themselves) important to theology? 

[teddyv]

Parallax measurements have ascertained distances to stars far greater than 6000 light years.

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

"" When this preservation works, it usually works quite well, serving to preserve many trees in a given area, providing the basis for crosschecking results. Such age-dating has been done with great confidence and repeatability back to 10,800 years in oak and pine tree in Poland [1], back to 8,900 years in the bristlecone pines in Nevada [2], and back to 7,300 years in the oak trees of Ireland. [3] The significance of this is that they (and others not cited) easily bust the 6000 year threshold. All of them must be refuted if one is to hold onto a 6000 year age.  ""

 

What would it require a tree that is millions of years old?

If we open many trees, or use many trees, as described in the article you gave,
we don't come up with millions of years, natural methods don't produce a million
year timeline, only thousands of years.

If you want to prove millions of years using trees, then you would need
trees that are millions of years old.

But the argument is that the earth, the universe, is not millions of years old,
and sticking to natural methods such tree ring counting proves such,
by the fact that only thousands of years are counted.

It does not have to be just 6k in my opinion.
That they get 7k or even 10k does not matter,
what matters is that they don't get anything like millions.

Radiometric dating is a natural method. But perhaps "natural" you are implying any non-radiometric methods?

[Desopixi Seilynam]

12 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Radiometric dating is a natural method. But perhaps "natural" you are implying any non-radiometric methods?

Right, counting tree rings is largely hands off,
not as intrusive as radiometric methods.

There are various machines/chemicals needed for radiometric dating,
whereas counting tree rings is simply opening a tree and counting the rings.

[DeighAnn]

Would/could any of you do some speculating from the 'science' point of view for me on events taking place like this?  Just wondering if science would have any reasons to say 'no way because...'.  



Millions of years ago the earth was created.  It was during that time that the dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Animals like
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Job 40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Today they are still finding their bones and this a quote from an article  recently  posted 

" the remarkably large bones which may have belonged to a massive dinosaur more than 130 feet long and weighing over 100 tons. The type of dinosaur has yet to be determined by researchers, but they believe it to be a particularly large member of the aptly named group known as titanosaurs. These mega-sized dinosaurs all have long tails, impressive weight, and walk around on all fours. Titanosaurs belong to a larger group of dinosaurs known as sauropods, of which the brontosaurus is probably the best known. Titanosaurs dwarfed even these megafauna".  


So, God described creating the earth and the sons of God and morning stars (OBVIOUSLY NO one IN EARTHY BODIES at that time) singing and shouting for joy and these animals roaming the earth.  (fossil fuels, WHEN do they come from?)

Anyway, for WHATEVER REASON, 'darkness' falls upon the earth (which begins an ICE AGE) and all perish along with all plants and animals of the earth. 


(the reason why tree rings CAN'T be found dated past that point, but fossils can and are and an explanation on sudden death of those animals might come from something like 'the sudden destruction',  God describes in 

Jeremiah 4:19 My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.  Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.  How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet? For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.  I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.  I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.  I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.  I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.  For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.  For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.)

And  the earth was covered in water and in darkness and mourned and then God began a new age, the age in which all things would come to pass and at the end the judgment would take place and then 'a new beginning' with a 'new' heaven and earth.  


Not asking anyone to believe it, 

again, just asking how that fits or DOESN'T FIT with what science is presently claiming as truth.  


Just in case....D







 

[Guest]

All living things including plants have DNA.  Where do evolutionists say it came from and what's their proof?

Source: Plant DNA

So what made the first plant DNA to come into existence?  Although our DNA is slightly different, can you recombine Plant DNA to make a person, theoretically of course?

I am amazed that some scientists cannot or will not see God's Signature (Handiwork) in the beautiful language of DNA.  DNA is both a programming language and a program at the same time.  Let's see a scientist turn a monkey into a tree, or vice-versa.