Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Get your ducks in a row folks

ergo -- Mormon DNA is a direct derivative of that resident in the
bodies of their first parents, of approx 8,000 years ago: Adam Eve.

And contemporary scientists are badly mistaken when they say that
the DNA was passed down over a million years from the postulated
African Homo erectus sub-species.

Correct?

UD

[_Nightlion]

...
Get your ducks in a row folks

ergo -- Mormon DNA is a direct derivative of that resident in the
bodies of their first parents, of approx 8,000 years ago: Adam Eve.

And contemporary scientists are badly mistaken when they say that
the DNA was passed down over a million years from the postulated
African Homo erectus sub-species.

Correct?

UD

Absolutley. You see God tweaked DNA on this earth, um, let's see with the Cannanites who were descendants of Cain upon whom a blackness came and upon all people at the tower of Babel causing them to forget all and have to begin again. Except for the righteous few.
Then he tweaked the Lamanites so that the blood lines on that island did not make a bunch of idiots. The Jaredites included friends and already had a healthy mix. Lehi and Ishmael were not far enough appart. So a serious tweak was in order.

God cannot tweak DNA......?....lol.............that's his specialty. Do you really believe an infinite God would use evolution to grind away a new species every ten million years? Come on! DNA tweaking is his handiwork. And he is gloriously wonderful at it. Just look around. Open your eyes and rejoice with exceeding great joy.
That is why Egyptian hieroglyphics will never really make good sense. They were reinterpreted afterward to speak a new language entirely.

[_SteelHead]

Yet again.

[_just me]

God's tweakin. LMAO

[_ludwigm]

Dendrochronology - for dating trees ...

[_Franktalk]

Just Me,

In order for past dating methods to be accurate the past has to be pretty much like we see things around us today. So radioactive decay we see today is assumed to be the same and then projections made. What this assumes is that some things in physics "constants" have in fact remained constant. It is a reasonable assumption but an assumption none the less. If the past was not like it is today then many dating methods would lead us to wrong dates. Things could be older or they could be younger. I happen to be believe that God is active and has indeed changed many things on the earth. Exactly how miracles (supernatural events) work I sure don't know. But I allow the possibility that these events have scrambled up the trace evidence that science uses to date objects. So by faith I believe in miracles and don't accept the assumptions of a uniform past. I know many good people who feel just the opposite. They have faith in the constant nature of nature and accept by faith the conclusions of science. Neither side has evidence to declare their side is fact. The people who hold to the Bible can point to the written Word and that we have a historical record and eye witness account. But each of us by faith accepts or rejects that historical record. On the other side science does not have observed testing of the constants of nature back in time. This has only been done in recent years. So they too lack a record of eye witness verification.

I have studied the science of dating past objects and have found it to be reasonable if you accept the assumptions of a uniform past. But there are some things that don't make sense even in science. 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. This is a huge subject and one I will not go into the detail. I have found that people have made up their mind about historical dating and there is nothing I can say to change that. But if you are curious I can point you to some raw data so you can do your own investigation.

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. Here is what Peter wrote many years ago.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here Peter is saying that in the last days or in Peter's future there will be scoffers. He says that these scoffers will say that from the time of the creation until the last days all things continue unchanged. This would be the idea of uniformitarianism. So one could say that Charles Lyell in writing his book on geology set a date for the start of the last days. He published his book Jan 1829. I will point out the Book of Mormon was also published Jan 1829. How odd that an idea pointed to by Peter lined up with a restored Gospel for the last days. Now Peter goes on to say that these scoffers deny the world being overflowed with water. I take this to mean Noah's flood which modern Geology denies. Peter says that by "the Word of God" the flood occurred. Or a supernatural event. Then Peter goes on and says that the world is being held in stasis (kept in store) waiting for the end. So Peter pretty much describes modern science and the ideas that it rests on. It is not a stretch to see that science lines up with this prophecy.
We also see that the "kept in store" is misinterpreted by science as uniformitarianism. But we are all free to accept or reject the assumptions of men.

[_EAllusion]

God could've created the universe a second ago with the appearance of age, sure. What you have to realize that is that this is a tremendous ad hoc account of the data we have. This makes it more implausible than the alternative. Drastically so in this case. So the fact that the age of the earth looks old due to the countless evidence lines pointing to an old age of the earth is evidence against a belief in a God who created a young earth and "scrambled up the evidence". That's true even if supernatural magic is consistent with any possible observation. That's not a strength; it's a weakness.

Further, God acting in this manner bothers many for theological reasons because it makes God look deceptive.

[_DrW]

Franktalk,

Your lack of understanding of science is equalled only by your unfounded belief in myths and fairy tales.

As compared to those of religion, the contributions of science to the development of humankind over the last several hundred years stand as overwhelming evidence that the answers provided by science are far more accurate and trustworthy than those provided by the Bible and religion.

Can you imagine what your life would be like if engineers, scientists, and those responsible for making the technological advances you depend on in the world turned to the Bible and religion for the data and information they need?

Have you ever thought about the fact that much of the Bible was made up by bronze age humans who had not yet learned to keep their feces separate from their food?

Once again, you have made it quite clear that you have no clue about science and have no compunction about demonstrating that fact in public.

Please remember, the future of humankind may well depend on your ability to stay well away from science labs or other ongoing legitimate scientific enterprises.

[_SteelHead]

DrW. The Bible teaches us that Pi = 3. Now use that in you equations.

[_Themis]

Just Me,

In order for past dating methods to be accurate the past has to be pretty much like we see things around us today. So radioactive decay we see today is assumed to be the same and then projections made. What this assumes is that some things in physics "constants" have in fact remained constant. It is a reasonable assumption but an assumption none the less.

When it comes to dating thing here on earth it's not really an assumption anymore and hasn't been for a very long time. You have continued to ignore multiple independent dating methods being used to test each others accuracy in dating the past. I am not even sure you understand the significance of this which has already been brought up in this thread

Things could be older or they could be younger.

Amazing they get it to work out so well.

I happen to be believe that God is active and has indeed changed many things on the earth. Exactly how miracles (supernatural events) work I sure don't know. But I allow the possibility that these events have scrambled up the trace evidence that science uses to date objects.

Steel head must be a prophet. He described you even before you posted.

steelhead

Just me, imagine that you absolutely know that the earth was created last Tuesday. Now throw out any evidence to the contrary and convolute your rationale to the point you can dismiss the scads of evidence to the contrary. Now add on a heap of bad psuedo science and presto...... You too can be a last Tuesday creationist.

So by faith I believe in miracles and don't accept the assumptions of a uniform past. I know many good people who feel just the opposite. They have faith in the constant nature of nature and accept by faith the conclusions of science.

Actually no. You can do what scientists have been doing all along and test assumptions and theories to see if they hold up.

Neither side has evidence to declare their side is fact.

Science does have many facts. There really isn't two sides here.

The people who hold to the Bible can point to the written Word and that we have a historical record and eye witness account.

This is incorrect, and ignores other religious writings of the past that have a different story. No wonder you a Us vs Them mind set