Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_just me]

We still have to contend with uninterrupted civilizations. I mean, I s'pose we could just say God made it look like it was an uninterrupted society when it really wasn't.

I have to wonder about a God that spends so much magic on tricking people and little to no magic feeding them and sustaining life.

Franktalk, could you give me some examples of the historical record that backs up the Bible? I would like Old Testament examples, of course. I would also like to know what dating methods were used to make the match...

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk, could you give me some examples of the historical record that backs up the Bible? I would like Old Testament examples, of course. I would also like to know what dating methods were used to make the match...

I will give you one. The Assyrian empire and city of Nineveh is mentioned many times in the Bible. The names of Kings and the conflict with surrounding peoples goes on until they are wiped out by the Babylonians in 612 BC. Now other historical writers also wrote of Nineveh as well. But the city of Nineveh was buried and lost to man. Many people believed in the city but no one could go there and touch it. Some people said the whole story of Nineveh was made up and the Assyrians never existed. Some people require that they be able to touch the wounds of Jesus before they will believe as well. The lost city was found in the 1840's.

Here is a history of the city.

http://history-world.org/nineveh.htm

and it being found

http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/article ... rd.03.html

Layard wrote an interesting book about his discoveries.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HwwYAA ... &q&f=false

The important thing to consider is that many things described in historical records are lost forever. We are lucky to find what we do. Even when we do find objects some will destroy them because of their beliefs.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ib ... -pyramids/

So what we must ask our self is just what does it take to believe? If indeed the pyramids are destroyed will future generations think of them as myth because they can no longer touch them. If indeed one day an evil man takes over the world and destroys all historical records will that destroy the past or just how we feel about it? Knowing what I do about how records are held and the agendas involved in making them I am amazed we have what we have. So to look for fine detail in something that happened thousands of year ago is asking a lot. Be happy with what we have and rest your faith not in rocks and statues but instead hold on to what your heart knows is true.

[_huckelberry]

The biggest problem is erosion. If we assume a constant past like science does with atomic decay then we should be able to project back in time and look at sediments and river deltas. We can measure the amount of sediment leaving a river and calculate how long it would take to wash entire continents out to sea. I have done this and have found that the evidence of erosion does not match the dating numbers found in other areas of science.

Continents are built up at the same time as the are worn down by erosion. This is not a speculation but an observation. This has been discussed before here. Are you demonstrating uniformitarian thinking by being impervious to new information?

[_Themis]

The biggest problem is erosion. If we assume a constant past like science does with atomic decay then we should be able to project back in time and look at sediments and river deltas. We can measure the amount of sediment leaving a river and calculate how long it would take to wash entire continents out to sea. I have done this and have found that the evidence of erosion does not match the dating numbers found in other areas of science.

Continents are built up at the same time as the are worn down by erosion. This is not a speculation but an observation. This has been discussed before here. Are you demonstrating uniformitarian thinking by being impervious to new information?

Frank has no interest in learning how things happened in the past. He already has a religious conclusion that is not open for debate. Everything he thinks conflicts with it has to be dismissed and attacked. This really is the real agenda here.

[_huckelberry]

So here we sit in these modern times using a uniform past to decide if we accept or deny the historical Bible record. Many assume that what they see around them has never changed. They embrace uniformitarianism as their guide to interpret the past. Actually this idea of a uniform past is pretty new. The term was first popularized in a book written by Charles Lyell in 1829. He wrote about geology and geology has been under his thumb ever since. He set the stage to reject what is termed catastrophism. Even today the science of geology is agenda driven and not driven by the data. If you look up the Bretz flood you will find that a good geologist researched the Columbia gorge and found out it was caused by a great flood from a draining large lake. Even though he had mountains of evidence his findings were rejected by orthodox geology because Bretz used a catastrophic event in his work. I wonder how many times this has been repeated in all areas of science. I find this to be a trademark of men in all areas not just science.

What I have found very interesting is this very mindset of science was predicted in the Bible.

Writing from a portion of the pathways of the flood in question I am remembering that the flood is standard geological understanding now not some minority theory. . Yes there was a short time in the past when the idea was first rejected. Then with more review of the actual evidence it became accepted across the board. This is a major illustration that science is not limited by prior assumptions like uniformitarianism. Prior assumptions can create some resistance to new ideas but evidence can overrule those assumptions. At least they can in the realm of science.

[_beefcalf]

What I have found very interesting is this very mindset of science was predicted in the Bible.

That rational people exist today should not come as much of a surprise. How surprising is it, then, that there existed rational people three thousand years ago? Rational people have rejected the magical mumbo jumbo peddled in the Bible as truth for as long as the sycophants have been pushing it.

For some ancient 'prophet' to notice that his scam was ineffective on a certain percentage of his prospective dupes took very little cunning. For him to scribble it down on a moldy goatskin and call it 'prophesy' took even less.

[_Franktalk]

Continents are built up at the same time as the are worn down by erosion. This is not a speculation but an observation. This has been discussed before here. Are you demonstrating uniformitarian thinking by being impervious to new information?

If you do the hard work of finding out how long whole continents erode away then you will question why most of the sediments found on those same continents are classified very old. If indeed whole continents erode away in 20 or 30 million years why do we have soil that is hundreds of millions of years old? If indeed subduction recycles the soils then why do we find fossils in the soil? Should it all have washed out to sea some time ago?

I have done the hard work of finding all of the data so I could answer these questions. I will not lay it out for you because you would not trust what I have to say. But I will give you a starting point if you wish to take this journey.

http://www.cep.unep.org/publications-an ... -river.pdf

In the years I have given this out not one person of science has actually checked out the data. To me this means that the data is not really what is the driving force. So sad to see.

[_Franktalk]

For some ancient 'prophet' to notice that his scam was ineffective on a certain percentage of his prospective dupes took very little cunning. For him to scribble it down on a moldy goatskin and call it 'prophesy' took even less.

Your opinion is truly noted and filed in its rightful place.

[_Chap]

...

In the years I have given this out not one person of science has actually checked out the data. To me this means that the data is not really what is the driving force. So sad to see.

So, let's think about the implications of this.

EITHER there is a vast conspiracy of silence and distortion, to which all university departments of geology in every country are party, as part of which all their faculty undertake to ignore the obvious evidence of the falsity of current geology, a conspiracy into which all students who study the subject are forcibly initiated, and of which no breath has ever reached Fox News. The truth is only known to the occasional obscure poster on boards like this.

OR Franktalk does not know what he is talking about.

From having seen Franktalk put forward his ideas on previous occasions, and from having seen how he reacts to questioning, I have just a smidgeon of a notion which conclusion makes more sense to me.

[_Franktalk]

Writing from a portion of the pathways of the flood in question I am remembering that the flood is standard geological understanding now not some minority theory. . Yes there was a short time in the past when the idea was first rejected. Then with more review of the actual evidence it became accepted across the board. This is a major illustration that science is not limited by prior assumptions like uniformitarianism. Prior assumptions can create some resistance to new ideas but evidence can overrule those assumptions. At least they can in the realm of science.

There are many giant floods in the past. But if you quiz the average geologist they will not know one of them.

The Gondwana planation of Jurasic age
The Kretacic planation late Early-mid Cretaceous
The Moorland planation late Cretaceous till mid-Cenozoic
The Rolling landsurface Mostly Miocene
The Widespread landscape Pliocene
The Youngest cycle modern Quaternary

Now planation is not exactly a giant flood but try and explain what we see with what most tell us is going on. It does not match. And check out the size of the round rock at the boundary layers. That gives us an indication of the amount of water involved.