This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
I think it describes how to use tree rings to determine the age of a tree.Just looked your thing up -
Be a Tree Ring Detective - Discover Your World
Be a Tree Ring Detective - Discover Your Worldoceanservice.noaa.gov
What do you think of this?
Back before the Flood, that ice would almost certainly not exist.
Were you there or do you just assume the storyThe Flood account is the original, and fakes and ripoffs came after that.
what you describe sounds like many biological evolution (of the K2K variety, i.e. bird-dino) and Cosmic evo scenarioes.
People regularly speculate where X COULD HAVE come from, what ancestor X animal COULD HAVE had. theres too much guesswork and illogical improbable scenarios that leave out many factors.
The Bible does not leave us in the dark like the Allegory side likes to think.
Bonus Fun fact: Neanderthals were also men, not "evolutionary ancestors that came from the monkey's ancestors". : https://crev.info/2024/08/neanderthals-r-us/
It's a good challenge to put forth to evolution of the K2K (kind to kind, kind being family) variety. Like what would a pre-tree do? And how would it ever perfect the mechanism/s for making the rings?
Atheists did not make polar ice, very true.
Oh. Good. You accept the use of that technique
God was there. The Ark passengers were, too.
I think you mean, "Do you assume that the original account really happened?"?
How? You said something about tree rings, and I replied and talked about tree rings. I didnt only talk about K2K evo.
See revised post.
The historical global flood, not "my" flood.
Which data do you refer to? Scientific or historical?
answersingenesis.org
Which "evolution"?
www.merriam-webster.com
The scientific definition of biological evolution. Change in allele frequencies in a population.
That's pretty much like saying, it's a fact that things fall down, but I wouldn't call it "gravity."
Oh, the magic YE creationist story about evolution. No, that's just a superstition, not the real thing. "Monkey to man" is just one of those weird ideas YE creationists invent when they don't know what they're talking about.
Speciation, which is also a change in allele frequencies in a population, is by definition evolution, but it's a special kind, called "macroevolution."
www.biologyonline.com
Again, you're confusing the natural phenomenon with the YE creationist superstition.
The YE one is more of a fairy tale than "guess-based."
Um, it's true because it's true isn't a very good reason.
There is polar ice far far older thanAround 4,000 years ago, give or take 450.
Which data do you refer to? Scientific or historical?
"Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine."
excerpt from
Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
The ice age is a popular topic that is often discussed. Sadly, most people hear the secular/uniformitarian view and don’t look at this subject from a biblical perspective.
Don't have to. All he'd have to do, is build the Ark, put the required number of people and animals aboard, and let it float about on the ocean for a year. But we both know why he'll never do that, don't we?
But just the same Ken Ham is never going to put his assumptions to the test, is he? Ham reacts to facts the way a vampire reacts to a crucifix.
Because it would take millions of years. In fact, the demonstrations are going on all around us. But AIG could do their demo in a year or even less. But we know why they will never try it.
They have "2 person boat" and "3 person boat" and so on. But the Ark story says 8 people were aboard. You've misread a really old YE creationist revision of a Chinese word for "boat." The thing is the element that would stand for 8, is used as a phonosemantic clue as to pronounciation.
decodemandarinchinese.com
There's an easy way to text that assumption. But as we all know, AIG will never do it.
It's a poor discussion if you are going to just say things. There's no " contra bible" or "guess based one".
The historical global flood, not "my" flood.
Around 4,000 years ago, give or take 450.
Which data do you refer to? Scientific or historical?
"Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine."
excerpt from
Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
The ice age is a popular topic that is often discussed. Sadly, most people hear the secular/uniformitarian view and don’t look at this subject from a biblical perspective.
" Yours" in the sense that it's your chosen.The historical global flood, not "my" flood.
Around 4,000 years ago, give or take 450.
Which data do you refer to? Scientific or historical?
"Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine."
excerpt from
Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
The ice age is a popular topic that is often discussed. Sadly, most people hear the secular/uniformitarian view and don’t look at this subject from a biblical perspective.
Writing in Chinese is not exactly easyBarbarian, regarding the reason Ham won't actually build an Ark and see it if works for a year:
There's a more practical reason, isn't there? I mean, if AIG could pull that off, that would shut up all the critics of his interpretation, wouldn't it?
Don't have to. All he'd have to do, is build the Ark, put the required number of people and animals aboard, and let it float about on the ocean for a year. But we both know why he'll never do that, don't we?
But just the same Ken Ham is never going to put his assumptions to the test, is he? Ham reacts to facts the way a vampire reacts to a crucifix.
Because it would take millions of years. In fact, the demonstrations are going on all around us. But AIG could do their demo in a year or even less. But we know why they will never try it.
They have "2 person boat" and "3 person boat" and so on. But the Ark story says 8 people were aboard. You've misread a really old YE creationist revision of a Chinese word for "boat." The thing is the element that would stand for 8, is used as a phonosemantic clue as to pronounciation.
船 is the Chinese word for "boat." The element on the left means "boat." The 八 on the upper right, can mean eight, but in this case, hints at the archaic pronunciation of "boat" in Chinese.
How Chinese components form phono-semantic characters?
To know how phono-semantic characters are formed. It's necessary to study how the semantic components and phonetic components function.
There's an easy way to text that assumption. But as we all know, AIG will never do it.
And no, I can't speak Mandarin, or any other language used in China. But I can, with a lot of difficulty, read some simple Chinese writing. Which is fortunately language-independent. As someone said, "every person should learn to speak English and write in Chinese." Easiest route to universal understanding.
The traditional characters are beautiful, but the simplified system is easier for me.
Grow pretty much the way trees do.
Rings aren't unique to trees. Woody growth, with rings, is common in dicots, and occasionally happens in monocots.
