Plants Falsify YEC Global Flood...

Arikay · #1 2nd April 2003, 06:21 PM

Amoung all the other evidence that has been shown that falsifies the YEC theory of a Global flood, I thought I would add these couple little tidbit.

First theres the Ancient Bristlecone Pine (http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html)

"Earth's oldest living [tree] inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree."

I believe that makes this tree 367 years older than the supposed Global flood.

Then theres the creosote bush:
(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...ientshrub.html)

"If confirmed, the bush – really a 38-foot, arrow-straight line of genetically identical bushes connected at the roots – could trump another creosote bush, dubbed "King Clone." That bush, found in 1980 to be 11,700 years old, is considered the oldest living thing on Earth. "

"king clone" is 5700 years older than the supposed age of the earth, and this new bush is thought to be even older.

look · #2 2nd April 2003, 11:28 PM

2nd April 2003 at 06:21 PM Arikay said this in Post #1

Amoung all the other evidence that has been shown that falsifies the YEC theory of a Global flood, I thought I would add these couple little tidbit.

First theres the Ancient Bristlecone Pine (http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html)

"Earth's oldest living [tree] inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree."

I believe that makes this tree 367 years older than the supposed Global flood.

Then theres the creosote bush:
(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...ientshrub.html)

"If confirmed, the bush – really a 38-foot, arrow-straight line of genetically identical bushes connected at the roots – could trump another creosote bush, dubbed "King Clone." That bush, found in 1980 to be 11,700 years old, is considered the oldest living thing on Earth. "

"king clone" is 5700 years older than the supposed age of the earth, and this new bush is thought to be even older.

Wonder how much the guy who kept track of all of the tree's birthdays got paid? He was there when it was just a seed, right?

Mechanical Bliss · #3 2nd April 2003, 11:30 PM

Irrelavent. Dendrochronology is a well established and accurate dating method.

Arikay · #4 2nd April 2003, 11:46 PM

Look: Unfortunatly many scientists dont get paid much. They do this because they like to do it.

The facts stil remain that there is a tree standing longer than 4000 years, and a bush that has been alive for more than 6000 years.

look · #5 3rd April 2003, 12:09 AM

2nd April 2003 at 11:46 PM Arikay said this in Post #4

Look: Unfortunatly many scientists dont get paid much. They do this because they like to do it.

The facts stil remain that there is a tree standing longer than 4000 years, and a bush that has been alive for more than 6000 years.

No really, I want to know. How is it possible to know a plant's age? What known standard do we have to calibrate this method (formula?) with? How do we know without counting growth rings? ALL of the fossilized trees have no growth rings, because it's rain that causes the rings. There was no rain before the flood, according to the Genesis record. I don't want to hear any complaints about this not being in line with this thread. Just as the evolutionists believe life evolved, so must all discussion on these threads. I see some people who are guilty of doing the same on some of the other forums.

So my question remains...

Arikay · #6 3rd April 2003, 12:17 AM

Well, its a valid question.

First of all, one thing to point out, "there was no rain before the flood" is an argument that AIG suggests not to use,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp
At the bottom of the page.

Second, I would suggest doing some study on Dendrochronology, among other things (if you are serious about learning). www.Google.com is a good place to start when doing research.

2nd April 2003 at 09:09 PM look said this in Post #5

No really, I want to know. How is it possible to know a plant's age? What known standard do we have to calibrate this method (formula?) with? How do we know without counting growth rings? ALL of the fossilized trees have no growth rings, because it's rain that causes the rings. There was no rain before the flood, according to the Genesis record. I don't want to hear any complaints about this not being in line with this thread. Just as life evolved, so must all discussion on these threads. I see some people who are guilty of doing the same on some of the other forums.

So my question remains...

look · #7 3rd April 2003, 12:25 AM

3rd April 2003 at 12:17 AM Arikay said this in Post #6

Well, its a valid question.

First of all, one thing to point out, "there was no rain before the flood" is an argument that AIG suggests not to use,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp
At the bottom of the page.

Second, I would suggest doing some study on Dendrochronology, among other things (if you are serious about learning). www.Google.com is a good place to start when doing research.

Arikay, you really don't know, do you? Does anybody? Come on...

JohnR7 · #8 3rd April 2003, 12:29 AM

3rd April 2003 at 12:09 AM look said this in Post #5

No really, I want to know. How is it possible to know a plant's age? 

They take a core sample and use a microscope to count the rings. The oldest living tree is actually no longer a living tree. Some students were taking a core sample and their tool broke. So they asked permission to cut down the tree and the park service actually gave them permission. It turned out they killed the oldest living tree known to exist on the earth.

The park service tries to keep their locaton hidden now. They do not want any problem with vandals. They do not mark the trees and try not to draw any attention to them.

Arikay · #9 3rd April 2003, 12:32 AM

I COULD find the information for you, but quite frankly im tired if digging up all sorts of evidence that YECs will then just ignore.

"Give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time."

YECs need to learn how to fish and stop being fed by other people.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I think ill go back to writting the mini paper thingy im doing (even though its been done at least three times now by different people) that will then be ignored by YECs.

Arikay · #10 3rd April 2003, 12:37 AM

LOL John, that was funny.

Look, I shall do yur homework for you. I see you failed to actually go to the links. As in the first link there was this: http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html An explination of how it all works.

whats that saying, Oh yeah "you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink."