What you and your chortling buddies overlook, in your zeal to nitpick fragments of the evidence Coyoteman referred to, is that the various lines of evidence come together to support each other’s dates. Dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, and historical information all give the same results: tree rings show signs of frost damage that correlate with volcanic eruptions; radiocarbon dating of material (trees, mud) associated with evidence of volcanic eruptions points to the same time frame as the tree rings; historical accounts of darkened skies are from the same time as the eruption. You need all these techniques to not only be wrong, but be wrong in precisely the same way by precisely the same amount, for your criticisms to hold water.
Meanwhile, you need to postulate weather conditions that are different from what we see today but are just different enough to cause trees to produce extra tree rings in some (but not all) years, or some unspecified climatic condition that changed how much C-14 was produced, to explain why the experimental results are wrong. You don’t offer evidence for those changes—you just say “what if?” And again, to support any particular date for the flood, these two unrelated measurements have to be corrected by exactly the same amount—what a coincidence!
And if you’re right, we’re apparently the victims of some huge practical joke played by the Creator, who fiddled around with weather patterns and cosmic rays just enough to fool us into thinking things are older than they really are. That’s the unlikeliest part of your whole scenario.
Sorry Ha Ha, the historical record is replete with global folklore that all point to a global flood; even the experts in the field of dendrochronology recognize that it is notoriously unreliable, and radiocarbon dating is often calibrated using dendrochronology; moreover, radiocarbon dating does not take into account what the C14 to C12 ratio would have been before a global flood (for instance, what would the C14 to C12 ratio have been if the organic matter buried under the earth, estimated to be 175 times as large as the organic matter in our current biosphere, was deposited there by a global flood?); and finally, the paper Wiley posted acknowledges that there are serious problems with the mtDNA clock. Indeed, the authors of the paper Wiley cited as evidence against the Noahitic flood admit that previous dating estimates using mtDNA were too old by up to four fold! But the Evos are also encountering other problems with the mtDNA clock. For instance, scientists have discovered that mtDNA mutates at a rate up to 20 times faster than previously thought. Thus, according to the faster mtDNA mutation rates, the date of our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) would have to be reduced from 133,000 years ago to around 6,500 years ago! Of course, the Evos can’t have that, as the following makes clear:
“The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.
The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.”
Except for dating methods like argon-argon, fission track, helium, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, utetium-hafnium, neon-neon, optically stimulated luminescence, potassium-argon, radiocarbon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, ranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, uranium-uranium, and events like SN1987A and the death star galaxy, what has science got to contradict a 6000 year old earth?
None of that matters. They're true believers. They interpret the bible that way, so that settles it.
Now all they have to do is twist facts, bend logic, and ignore most of science to make things all come out in accordance with their beliefs. But that's no problem.
They're doing creation "science."
There were two events listed in Scripture that indicate a change of condition in the universe or planet, one was the Fall, where corruption entered, and other was the Flood.
If you want to think that God did it for the sole purpose of deceiving man, then by all means you’re free to do so. But to attribute motives to Him where there is no justification for it is just fairy tales, the stuff so many evos like to use to condemn people who don’t believe them.
A change in condition is just that, a change. It happened. If you’re going to get into appearance and all, then tell me, just how old would scientists say Adam was on the day he was created as a full grown man?
Any Christian who believes the Bible would say less than a day and the evos/scientists would laugh themselves silly when obviously he was ___ years old. (say thirty for the sake of argument), but tell me then, who is right?
Adam wasn’t created a full grown man, with the appearance of age, for the purposes of deceit, but practicality and usefulness. The same can apply to the universe. If life as we know it can only exist in certain, specific conditions, then the universe would have to be created to accommodate that life and if it has the appearance of age, that’s just incidental, just as Adam having the appearance of age is incidental.
If I were to prepare a house for someone to live in, completely furnished, with even a hot meal ready to eat and leftovers for later, it would be a matter of courtesy and convenience for the guest, not to deceive him into thinking that someone else had lived there before.
So tell me.... How old was Adam the day he was created a full grown man?