“More than centuries, tree ring patterns overlap allowing older trees to be matched with younger and extending the entire sequence back not just ‘centuries’, but millennium.”
Tree rings form due to weather patterns usually related to the seasons caused by the tilt of the earth’s axis as it traverses the sun. The Bible clearly identifies that the cataclysmic event of Noah’s deluge impacted these seasons:
Genesis 8:20-22
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.”
It is easily observable that trees growing in climates without annual weather patterns do not have rings that represent years of their lives. Take a look at trees near to the equator today, such as those in tropical rainforests. The earth was probably much more like such rainforests before the flood.
Genesis 2:6
A mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
And it is highly likely that rings from trees older than 5000 years represent time periods greater than one year whereby weather patterns changed gradually over much longer time periods.
“Tree rings confirm carbon-14 and carbon-14 takes us back about 60,000 years.”
Carbon dating is also imprecise before the flood because it relies on a constant ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which one might reasonably expect to dramatically change as a result of the flood. Further, carbon dating is calibrated using tree ring data, for which I have already shown the flaw of treating rings as representing equal time periods before the flood.
The reason the earth and living things do not run out of carbon-14 due to its decay is that carbon-14 is continuously replenished by the bombardment of atmospheric nitrogen by neutrons released by cosmic radiation reaching the atmosphere. It is reasonable to assume that cosmic radiation has been relatively constant over the past few thousand years. However, its penetration into the atmosphere changed, like the other changes mentioned here, at the flood. Before the flood, a large part of the water presently on the earth was then stored ABOVE the atmosphere.
Genesis 1:7
Thus God made the firmament [i.e. sky], and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were ABOVE [emphasis added] the firmament; and it was so.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Notice flood waters came from below the ground and from above, which presumably is referring to the waters above the sky. These may have even been rings much like Saturn has currently. Peter also mentions these two sources of the flood waters:
2 Peter 3:5-6
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
While the flood passages do not explicitly describe the waters above the atmosphere falling at the deluge, it does say they initially were located there, and we can observe that they are not there now. So the most reasonable explanation of the flood passages is that part of the flood waters came from a massive reservoir of water that was originally above the atmosphere when God first formed the earth. And while “windows of heaven” being opened could be figurative language to describe heavy rain, it is far more likely a description of the cataclysmic downpour caused by a total collapse of ice rings around the earth.
“Many ice-core samples have been taken from different glaciers, including Antarctic”
Do I need to point out the impact of pre-deluge climate on these ice cores?
“Other methods of direct observation of ancient time scales include stalactite layers”
Let’s get real. “Direct observation” of present-day subjects does NOT constitute direct observation of the PAST. The exception to this is light from stars. DIRECT OBSERVATION of the past is only and exclusively HISTORICAL records.
Can you imagine trying to recreate the American Civil War using tools of modern science with NO HISTORICAL record? The findings would be a massive uptick in lead poisoning in the 19th century. Of course I’m being a little facetious, but only slightly.
The reckless use of science produces irrational overconfidence with tragic consequences. Think of Nazi eugenics based on misappropriated Darwinian science. Or consider the futile attempts to save President Garfield by locating a bullet lodged in his body using a metal detector. He was cut open by the surgeon in multiple places due to the metal detector detecting the bed springs of the bed being used as the surgery table. Any personal feelings on the idea of carbon tax credits?
“So for counter-argument, here is a 2004 article which claims all these methods are wrong. If I understand correctly, it argues that since all the different methods agree or support each other they’re all based on common assumptions which makes them not independent and therefore wrong. I’d call that an exercise in hand waving.”
When such “science” is used to stifle the free exercise of religion—and it is—then it is no longer being used for scientific inquiry but is encroaching upon areas in which science does not belong.
I do not demand that anyone accept the historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible. However, I do insist that historical eye-witness accounts can not be excluded from the debate as if unscientific by definition.
If the philosophy of science is determined exclusively by naturalism, then it is an outright denial of anything existing which can not be scientifically studied. It is not merely a refusal to include them, it is a denial that they even exist. And this is akin to studying the Civil War and refusing to consider the historical record.
The existence of mind is not a scientific observation or theory. It is a presupposition of all science. We have a mind, therefore we can learn. It’s existence is evident to us individually because we are self-aware. However, we assume (reasonably) that others also have minds and are not merely mimicking our own rational behavior. (How can we know if an AI program is self-aware or simply very adept at mimicry?) Yet we consider the existence of minds (even those beyond our own which we can not directly observe or experience) as OBVIOUS. So much so that, until recently, it was thought that mind is an emergent property of matter (i.e. brain matter). Yet, there has NEVER been ANY scientific theory for how mind possesses this emergent quality. And now testable scientific theories support the opposite: matter is an emergent property of conscious agents.
Why is it ok for science to ASSUME the existence of mind but not the existence of God? Both are obvious. Causality is axiomatic to science. Without it nature would be incomprehensible. Science ASSUMES that nature can be understood through scientific inquiry because nature is comprehensible, events are causal, and minds to understand with do indeed exist. Something or someone MUST be self-existing. And this is self-evident in the same way as Descartes’ foundational philosophic proof of self-awareness informing existence.
Historical records are based on observation. Science has no way to determine the accuracy of these records because history can not be reproduced in a lab, and certainly does not lend itself to controlled experimentation. The decision to accept or reject historical accounts is therefore not within the purview of science but rather is a philosophical choice. Albeit, science can be used to speculate on more outlandish claims of history, whether these be resurrection from the dead or Paul Bunyan’s giant blue ox. Science may presently observe neither. But this must not be treated as scientific PROOF of their non-existence. It is a philosophical choice to treat the first as credible and the second as a tall tale. For me the difference is in the consistency and reliability of the source. Of course, we can sometimes observe in literature that the stories are intended by the author to not be taken literally.
It is high time to get rid of certain logical errors in the evolution and creation debate. The scope of science is to help us make sense of data. The facts of science are what can be observed. The theories and laws are the explanations (with laws having a consistent mathematical model applied). Science can only answer a limited range of questions. It is not the foundation or sole basis of epistemology.
Science can not determine what is science. That is a philosophical choice, not a scientific one.
Science can not determine what is moral.
Science can not answer philosophical questions.
For example, science may be able to tell us what happens when human-animal genetics are combined to form hybrids, but it can not answer if and why this is a wise or moral thing to do.
It is necessary that science be subject to and guided by wise, moral, philosophic choice. For me, the Bible is the foundation for these things.
unlearner:
"Take a look at trees near to the equator today, such as those in tropical rainforests.
The earth was probably much more like such rainforests before the flood." Indeed, there is plenty of geological & fossil evidence that the Earth was often much warmer than today, in the far past.
This chart is one representation of the evidence:
unlearner: "And it is highly likely that rings from trees older than 5000 years represent time periods greater than one year whereby weather patterns changed gradually over much longer time periods."
Meaning: if counting tree rings gives us an age of, say, 12,000 years, it might really be much older?
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there's no evidence to support it.
All the confirming evidence -- i.e., carbon-14 dating -- says otherwise.
unlearner: "Carbon dating is also imprecise before the flood because it relies on a constant ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which one might reasonably expect to dramatically change as a result of the flood."
Again, an interesting hypothesis, but there's no physical evidence suggesting if, when or how such a change happened.
unlearner: "Further, carbon dating is calibrated using tree ring data, for which I have already shown the flaw of treating rings as representing equal time periods before the flood."
But you suggested that ancient tree rings might represent more than one year periods which would mean that material we test as, say, 25,000 years old might, in fact, be 50,000 years old.
As I mentioned before, an interesting hypothesis, but no physical evidence to support it.
unlearner: "Before the flood, a large part of the water presently on the earth was then stored ABOVE the atmosphere."
Indeed, the physical evidence does suggest that much, or all, of Earth's water arrived here from deep-space comets.
Of course, the time period was several billions of years ago, not thousands.
unlearner: "Notice flood waters came from below the ground and from above..."
Somewhere I read that the amount of water (H20) locked away in solid materials of the Earth is far greater than all the oceans combined.
I'm not enough of a chemist to know how that works, but have no reason to doubt it.
unlearner: "And while “windows of heaven” being opened could be figurative language to describe heavy rain, it is far more likely a description of the cataclysmic downpour caused by a total collapse of ice rings around the earth."
Scientifically speaking, the evidence suggests a massive bombardment by water-bearing comets billions of years ago.
unlearner: "Do I need to point out the impact of pre-deluge climate on these ice cores?"
You claim, with no evidence to support it, that Earth was much warmer in the relatively recent past.
The physical evidence suggests a series of ice-ages each lasting about 100,000 years broken by relatively brief 10,000 year-long interglacials.
The current interglacial started about 10,000 years ago and is now getting a bit, well, long of tooth.
Ice core layers from Antarctica have been counted back 800,000 years and analyzed to show changes in global temperatures.
unlearner: "Let’s get real. 'Direct observation' of present-day subjects does NOT constitute direct observation of the PAST. "
Of course it does.
When you look at a tree-ring or a rock you are also looking at the processes which first created them, even if you don't fully understand what you see.
unlearner: "Can you imagine trying to recreate the American Civil War using tools of modern science with NO HISTORICAL record?"
Physical evidence would show us huge numbers killed at one place & time by mini-balls or cannon shot, with many more dying daily from diseases.
It might also reveal that many of those killed were closely related leading us to wonder why brothers would kill brothers in such numbers?
unlearner: "The reckless use of science produces irrational overconfidence with tragic consequences. Think of Nazi eugenics..."
Agreed, but science has come a long way since then and today nobody pretends that Nazis had anything to do with real science.
unlearner: "When such “science” is used to stifle the free exercise of religion—and it is—then it is no longer being used for scientific inquiry but is encroaching upon areas in which science does not belong."
Agreed, well said.
unlearner: "I do not demand that anyone accept the historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible.
However, I do insist that historical eye-witness accounts can not be excluded from the debate as if unscientific by definition."
I am fully satisfied that God explained to ancient Israelites as much science as they could understand and needed to know.
When other sons of Judah needed to know much more (i.e., Albert Einstein) God revealed as much to them as suited His purposes.
unlearner: "If the philosophy of science is determined exclusively by naturalism, then it is an outright denial of anything existing which can not be scientifically studied.
It is not merely a refusal to include them, it is a denial that they even exist."
Correct, which is why I'm always careful to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism (atheism) and Methodological Naturalism which simply defines natural-science as the study of nature using only natural explanations.
Methodological Naturalism does not deny the existence of the Supernatural, only posits that natural science is not intended to study it.
unlearner: "Yet, there has NEVER been ANY scientific theory for how mind possesses this emergent quality.
And now testable scientific theories support the opposite: matter is an emergent property of conscious agents."
You've posted that now several times and while I'd disagree, I don't have enough idea of my own views to even debate it.
Suffice it to say: I've seen no such evidence.
unlearner: "Why is it ok for science to ASSUME the existence of mind but not the existence of God?"
Science would only assume existence of mind to the degree it can be studied using tools of natural-science.
Anything beyond that would be outside science's scope of inquiry.
unlearner: "Science can only answer a limited range of questions.
It is not the foundation or sole basis of epistemology."
Bingo!
unlearner: "It is necessary that science be subject to and guided by wise, moral, philosophic choice.
For me, the Bible is the foundation for these things."
Amen!