The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

I've never heard of 'observational' time and 'calculated' time as being two distinct things until I started this conversation with you

Sounds more like a problem with your knowledge of phsyics to me. If observational definition of time was just made up then why is there an equation to convert between the two definitions of time that is used by Physicists?

The speed of light for any given angle as measured in observed time is: C= c0 l(1-Cos(Theta))

where c0 is the canonical speed of light (1,079 million km/hr) as measured in calculated time, and θ is the angle of the light relative to the observer.

As you should recall from reading the post you responded to, we weren't discussing the flood.
Most scientists with a knowledge of dendrochronology aren't creationists, so no, the wouldn't agree with you (and yes, there are statistics on that you'll no doubt ignore.)

Actually we WERE discussing the flood because you said there were trees that pre-dated the flood. Which of course is not the case due to the reasons I have already given.

Reasons the flood cannot happen:
1) NOT ENOUGH WATER on the entire planet to cover all land.
2) The Ark, as described in the bible, can not support all life on earth for any length of time
3) Fossil record does not support a flood
4) Trees and other creatures that could not have survived a worldwide flood are still around

1. You're right there is not enough water ON the planet to cover the planet. However the "fountains of the great deep" which opened up would include some of the water that is encased in the mineral structures in the Earth's mantle. Even many secular Geologists estimate there is enough water in the Earth's mantel to fill all the ocean's ten fold.

2. You're right, the Ark could not support all life on Earth for any period of time. It's a good thing it didn't have to. Rather, it only had to support 2 of each "kind" of animal. Thanks to Darwin and rapid speciation we can estimte that there are only around 5000 different kinds of animals that would be required to take on the Ark and still end up with the diveristy we see today. This was more than doable.

3. The fossil record actually is some of the strongest evidence for a global flood. I am glad we have it.

4. Already told you, tree ring dating cannot be used to demonstrate that any trees pre-date the flood. Especially since the very genuses that are supposedly so old are the same ones that can add more than one ring per year.

I call Bullshit. I eat through scientific journals, books, and media out of boredom. I'm certainly not afraid of looking at the an-istrotropic light horoscope from the alchemy daily.
I'm not even going to start on the hypocracy over denigrating me over using youtube and wikipedia but failing to provide even a link to a ridiculously biased paper by a creationist who wants to prove creationism and not actually do science.

Why would I link you to the articles then? Since it is obvious that you have already made up your mind about them before even seeing them. What kind of rationale is that? If I thought you were an objective person I would be more than happy to share them with you, you have already admitted that you are far from that. So I will just keep refuting you with the information from them. You can keep using youtube and wiki, by all mans.

Why would they date the rock to determine the age of the wood or vice versa?
It sounds to me like you want them to disagree - to say nothing over the fact that they don't.

Seems pretty logical that when you find a piece of wood completely encased in sandstone, you would assume that the wood would have to either be older or at very least the same age as the sandstone (if you know how sandstone is formed). Howeever, when the wood was dated it was over 249 million years younger than the sandstone. One or both of those dating methods is not reliable then.

---

Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

The arguement's age clearly does nothing to dissway its correctitude and unfortunately, simply stating "Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent." is not a rebuttal of any kind.
You see, that quote also included a bibliography and was based on studies, facts, and other juicy bits of information that make it a credible source (among other reasons).
As I can see above, you provided two sentences that I presume you wrote yourself that actually provide no reason whatsoever as to why or how anything brought up is wrong and as such, you have done nothing to actually proving anything.

Sweet, I was hoping you'd say something along these lines. So I can now remember this next time you try and say the Bible is only a "bronze aged book" or "old and out-dated"- thanks.

I thought it was kind of apparent. A structure that has supposedly lost its functionality is not evidence for particle to human Evolution because this shows an actual loss in information and functionality. So it is more evidence for de-evolution than it is for evolution and actually does damage to the Theory. Now if we had observed organs that used to do very little, but now have become more and more complex and do more and more in the organism then we'd actually have something to work with. Besides it can't be used as proof because as many people have said on here, "just because we don't know the answer now does not mean we won't find it later on"- I can always just use that argument back at you. Again, the list of "vestigial" organs used to be huge, now it is small, so it looks like your evidence is actually dying.