If trees haven’t always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.
A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the “highly unlikely” claim you’re making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it’s unlikely unless you’ve observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?
The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don’t argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they’re not going to be receptive.
If trees haven’t always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.
A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the “highly unlikely” claim you’re making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it’s unlikely unless you’ve observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?
I mean we can literally see into the past and observe the laws of physics being consistent, not sure what your point is?
The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don’t argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they’re not going to be receptive.