How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Evolutionists have control of the science journals now and attempt to prevent YEC scientists from publishing anything that contradicts their worldview. They do not have to prove it wrong. They only claim it is a religious view and therefore not science and it is prohibited from publication.

You can't deny that creationism is motivated by religion. You're own diatribes about the "evil" evolutionists working for the fictional character you call the devil say as much.

Also, science can't function if any old idea is considered valid by virtue of having followers that wants to believe it's true. You have to back up your claims about the real world with physical evidence from the real world, and creationist scientists consistenly fails in that regard. In fact, even the simplest evidence (such as tree rings) points away from a 6000 year old universe. This is the reason creationist scientists can't publish papers about their ideas in the more prestigious science magazines, not that there's some great conspiracy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Evolutionists have control of the science journals now and attempt to prevent YEC scientists from publishing anything that contradicts their worldview. They do not have to prove it wrong. They only claim it is a religious view and therefore not science and it is prohibited from publication.

Actually, a real study was done on that very subject, is there a vast conspiracy to squash creationist science papers. What they found was in fact there is a dearth of creationist papers even submitted to be published. It seems rather than this vast atheist conspiracy, the creation science crowd is simply not submitting papers and that is the truth of it.

Originally posted by C Hess
You can't deny that creationism is motivated by religion. You're own diatribes about the "evil" evolutionists working for the fictional character you call the devil say as much.

Also, science can't function if any old idea is considered valid by virtue of having followers that wants to believe it's true. You have to back up your claims about the real world ...[text shortened]... t their ideas in the more prestigious science magazines, not that there's some great conspiracy.

I have already discussed tree rings with sonhouse. There is not one record of a tree that had 6000 or more rings. That is more lies from Satan.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually, a real study was done on that very subject, is there a vast conspiracy to squash creationist science papers. What they found was in fact there is a dearth of creationist papers even submitted to be published. It seems rather than this vast atheist conspiracy, the creation science crowd is simply not submitting papers and that is the truth of it.

That is another lie from Satan.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is another lie from Satan.

Anything that disproves the bible is a lie.
Therefore there is nothing to disprove the bible.
Therefore the bible is absolutely true.

QED

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Anything that disproves the bible is a lie.
Therefore there is nothing to disprove the bible.
Therefore the bible is absolutely true.

QED

😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already discussed tree rings with sonhouse. There is not one record of a tree that had 6000 or more rings. That is more lies from Satan.

You are REALLY dense. You don't have to have a single tree 10,000 years old to date the rings. But you knew that. They match the pattern of thickness and thinness of the rings and can see an overlap which the older tree then has rings going back further in time because changes in climate, summer Vs winter makes the rings go thicker and thinner and drought vs wet times makes them thinner and thicker so those patterns appear on more than one tree because they all react the same so there will be a section of rings that matches the pattern of newer trees but the older rings will stand out not matching any pattern and thus show a ring count going back further in time than the age of any one tree.

It has worked that way for millions of years and if we had a solid base of tree ring data we could take it back that far but I think the max they have been able to use that technique is around 10,000 or so years back due to lack of tree fossils that records those rings.

But you knew that all along and just can't accept anything that refutes the biblical fairy tales you cling to so desperately.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is not one record of a tree that had 6000 or more rings.

Edit: too slow - what sonhouse said.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are REALLY dense. You don't have to have a single tree 10,000 years old to date the rings. But you knew that. They match the pattern of thickness and thinness of the rings and can see an overlap which the older tree then has rings going back further in time because changes in climate, summer Vs winter makes the rings go thicker and thinner and drought v ...[text shortened]... nd just can't accept anything that refutes the biblical fairy tales you cling to so desperately.

Trying to construct long periods of time by adding the rings of many trees together is not observable science, but speculation voodoo. Another lie of the Devil.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Trying to construct long periods of time by adding the rings of many trees together is not observable science, but speculation voodoo. Another lie of the Devil.

How is it not observable science? You specificaly observe the tree rings, observe how rings overlap, and then you observe the total number of rings you get once you've taken overlapping rings into account. Observe, observe, observe.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Trying to construct long periods of time by adding the rings of many trees together is not observable science, but speculation voodoo. Another lie of the Devil.

So you tell US how trees of different ages can have rings that match exactly in tree after tree, tell us oh maven of science.

Originally posted by C Hess
How is it not observable science? You specificaly observe the tree rings, observe how rings overlap, and then you observe the total number of rings you get once you've taken overlapping rings into account. Observe, observe, observe.

It is only observable for short periods of time. At some point it becomes a judgment call and becomes speculation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you tell US how trees of different ages can have rings that match exactly in tree after tree, tell us oh maven of science.

Who is to say if the rings match exactly, evolutionists or creationist? Who is to say if they continue on tree after tree for 10,000 years, evolutionists or creationists? This is speculation, not science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is only observable for short periods of time. At some point it becomes a judgment call and becomes speculation.

No, it doesn't become speculation. When the first X number of rings in one tree shows that weather was cold, warm and so on, and those rings matches the last X number of rings of an older tree, you'd have to have a really good explanation how that could have happened if you're not going to accept the obvious conclusion. Whether or not rings matches between trees is no more a matter of opinion than determining whether or not the sun is shining right now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who is to say if the rings match exactly, evolutionists or creationist? Who is to say if they continue on tree after tree for 10,000 years, evolutionists or creationists? This is speculation, not science.

Well, have you seen the rings? If you haven't you have not credibility to say one way or the other. You obviously don't WANT to see those rings so you can keep on saying it's all speculation. You are so deep in denial you can't reason your way out of a paper bag any more.