Plants Falsify YEC Global Flood...

[Arikay]

Ok, first of all, I cut the scripture because it then further explains what has been destroyed.

So, either the scripture is lieing, or god does not consider a plant to be alive, there is no other way around this.

Yes the tree could live like that, and so could the bushes. Have you been out to the california desert?

see my other thread for info on the science.

4th April 2003 at 10:36 PM look said this in Post #39

The scripture we used does further qualify it with, "both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven;..., You have taken a part of one verse and made it stand alone on it's own. You can't do that, if you did that in your studies, you would fail school miserably! Where do you get the justification to lift parts of verses and leave out any qualifiers? You can draw any conclusions from that, but in the process, you would be slanting the whole picture to mold it to your viewpoint. This can be shown to be misleading, therefore you should refrain from using that example (?).



I totally agree with you, they were not around when the flood occured, thus proving that ring counting is bogus. Thanks, I appreciate the assist.



With no protecting bark, in the middle of the desert?



Wow, it's been a long since I saw a contradiction in just one sentence! "Tree rings do have their problems, but they have been shown to be very accurate?"

Ok, I'll bite, what other types of dating have they been checked against?

 

[look]

5th April 2003 at 01:27 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #38



Lemming? Hardly.

But do you really think your little handwave dismissal to a whole field of science actually carries some weight? Do you honestly believe you are better informed about dendrochronology than people that make entire careers out of it? Get real.

Sorry Pete, but after checking it out for myself (the tree ring thingie...) I knew it was bogus. I knew how old the branches were and applied the ring counting and it didn't add up. Sorry Pete, but my Momma didn't raise me to be somebody's fool.

If somebody tells me that something works in a certain way and I try it just like they said, if it doesn't work like they said, then I'm going to assume that person or 'disclipine' is something not to waste my time with.

Goodnite...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

5th April 2003 at 01:46 AM look said this in Post #42

Sorry Pete, but after checking it out for myself (the tree ring thingie...) I knew it was bogus. I knew how old the branches were and applied the ring counting and it didn't add up. Sorry Pete, but my Momma didn't raise me to be somebody's fool.

If somebody tells me that something works in a certain way and I try it just like they said, if it doesn't work like they said, then I'm going to assume that person or 'disclipine' is something not to waste my time with.

Again, you are completely dismissing an entire field of science based on a single attempt of your own to "date" some branches by counting the rings. Do you really know that your own attempts to date these branches were valid? Did you even bother to find out an explanation for your findings?

Next thing you know you're going to be telling me heart surgery is bogus because you failed to correctly perform a triple bypass.

I am amazed by your conceit.

 

[Arikay]

I agree with Pete. Just because you dont know how to do something, it doesnt make it false.

I dont know how to do a lot of things, that doesnt imediatly make them false.

 

[JohnR7]

3rd April 2003 at 07:34 PM notto said this in Post #32 Scienists know that there can be more than one "layer" per year. .......To suggest that a simply counting of layers is how ice-core dating is done is an oversimplification and a misstatement. Often times, they will pick one type of layer that has a signature of "spring" and count how many "spring" layers there are in the core. They just count the "spring" layers, not each layer to determine the age of the ice cor.

You sound like your coming over to the creation side of the argument now. Becasue evolution people say every layer you can find represents a year and that is evidence for a old earth. The YEC people say every layer represents a snow fall, and there are only 6000 years of layers and that is evidence for a young earth.

They are both looking at the same "evidence" but they are getting that "evidence" to support their theory.

If creationists and evolutionists disagree over how to interpert the "evidence" when it comes to ice core samples. Then it only stands to reason they are going to have the same disagrement over tree core samples.

I don't care myself, I don't have  a "favorite" theory. I just know there are LOTS of theorys to explain prehistoric evidence. For me, I think it is interesting to study all the different theorys and someday it may turn out there is some truth in all of them, but most of them missed the mark.

I tend not to believe the whole earth flood theory. I think the evidence they are looking at and saying it is the result of a world wide flood is actually evidence of the end of the ice age when the ice was melting and leaving it's mark on the earth. That can still fit in with a YEC theory, if a day in Genesis is equal to 1000 years.

In Ohio 10,000 years ago, we were covered with Ice, Flordia 10,000 years ago was simply put a big marsh, Utah was also under water. Those are the only three areas I have spent time in to study the ancient prehistoric history.

 

[JohnR7]

5th April 2003 at 01:53 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #43



Again, you are completely dismissing an entire field of science based on a single attempt of your own to "date" some branches by counting the rings.

You can not force people to see things from your perspective to try and establish your pet theory. They have their own theory and they interpert the data in a way that supports their theory.

Whatever theory you happen to believe is just one of many theorys out there, that attempts to explain the same data or evidence. Everyone seems to have some sort of preconceived theory, then they try to get the data to support their theory.

 

[JohnR7]

5th April 2003 at 01:46 AM look said this in Post #42

Sorry Pete, but after checking it out for myself (the tree ring thingie...) I knew it was bogus.

In your heart do you really believe the evidence supports your theory? Because a lot of people are using the same evidence to support their theory.

 

[JohnR7]

5th April 2003 at 12:18 AM look said this in Post #34 

BTW, I have also found that fossilization does not take millions or thousands of years to occur. The process can take as little as one year (depending on size) in silica rich waters.

As a carpenter we have run across wood in the walls of old houses that is so hard we could not drive a nail into it. Back before they use to kilm dry their lumber and before they ran it though a plane.

Starting in 1942, they started to kilm dry wood and cook the sap out of them. So now old wood gets more brittle than anything else. But wood from 100 years ago that was naturally aged, tends to get as hard as a rock.

 

[Arikay]

One correction,
After reading through the bible a bit more, it does appear that god does not consider trees to be living.

However, that does not negate the fact that in both flood models this old tree would have been killed.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

5th April 2003 at 06:46 AM look said this in Post #42

Sorry Pete, but after checking it out for myself (the tree ring thingie...) I knew it was bogus. I knew how old the branches were and applied the ring counting and it didn't add up. Sorry Pete, but my Momma didn't raise me to be somebody's fool.

If somebody tells me that something works in a certain way and I try it just like they said, if it doesn't work like they said, then I'm going to assume that person or 'disclipine' is something not to waste my time with.

Goodnite...

This from the person who told us about the creationist biosphere and apparently bought into the solid hydrogen firmament.  Amazing. 

Dendrochonology is actually very precise when cross dating is used especially with trees like pines growing at high altitude.  They add annual rings reliably and it is possible to detect and correct for the very rare occasions when a ring is added or dropped using cross dating.  If tree ring data were wildly innacurate as you claim it would not provide climate records that correlate to known climate changes back through the little ice age bewteen 1560 and 1850 and the midieval warm period from 600 to 1150 AD.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

The Frumious Bandersnatch