Were Dinosaur bones planted there by satan?

[KindGuardian]

Say we could cut down one of the trees that were back from the time of creation, why doesn't just not have rings? It could be a mature tree, it could complete all the functions of a mature tree, but it doesn't have the rings. The rings are a result of weathering and erroding, but if that never happened they're probably not there. As for when Adam was created, I doubt God was like: A little scar here, a scab here, a mended bone here. Hehe, he probably didn't have wrinkles either. When all the stars were created, who's to say they weren't created at the same life stage? All stars don't have the same age to the exact day, so say they were all created at the same maturity level. Then eventually one would die a different day then another then start to form a new star. Next week, another star goes nova and begins forming a new star. Eventually the age between stars would be very different by the time it got to... well by the time it got to now. So now we have a diversity of things different ages. The idea that God created trees and stars different ages would be the same as saying Adam was created as an old man and Eve was but a child. Over a period of time, by the fact that everything has a different life time or shelf life, the ages would begin to varry.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Say we could cut down one of the trees that were back from the time of creation, why doesn't just not have rings? It could be a mature tree, it could complete all the functions of a mature tree, but it doesn't have the rings.

That would be the honest thing to do. Create something mature, but not old.

The rings are a result of weathering and erroding, but if that never happened they're probably not there. As for when Adam was created, I doubt God was like: A little scar here, a scab here, a mended bone here. Hehe, he probably didn't have wrinkles either.

And that is precisely what falsifies YEC from a theological standpoint. This entire planet is covered with scars, scabs, signs of wear and tear. In short, with signs of age and of history. God could've easily left them out... indeed, they serve no purpose if the Earth is in fact young, except to make it look like something it is not.

And God would not make something look old unless it was old. He might make something mature, but not old. See the difference?

When all the stars were created, who's to say they weren't created at the same life stage? All stars don't have the same age to the exact day, so say they were all created at the same maturity level.

But the light from stars still takes millions of years to reach us. What we're seeing is not what is out there, but what was out there a million years ago...unless God is making us see things which are not there.

Then eventually one would die a different day then another then start to form a new star. Next week, another star goes nova and begins forming a new star. Eventually the age between stars would be very different by the time it got to... well by the time it got to now. So now we have a diversity of things different ages. The idea that God created trees and stars different ages would be the same as saying Adam was created as an old man and Eve was but a child. Over a period of time, by the fact that everything has a different life time or shelf life, the ages would begin to varry.

And none if it is real... just a clever trick to imply a history which never happened.

Not something I'd expect from God.

 

[ebia]

Say we could cut down one of the trees that were back from the time of creation, why doesn't just not have rings? It could be a mature tree, it could complete all the functions of a mature tree, but it doesn't have the rings. The rings are a result of weathering and erroding, but if that never happened they're probably not there.

The trouble is that we do look, and the rings are there. If the world were 6000 years old then we ought to very quickly find the point where these stories all go blank - and it's not there. The stories just go back and back.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry boys. The truth detector has found you out!

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Discover how these trees were found and where they live. Learn of their unique strategies for survival. The focus will be on the White-Inyo mountain range of California.


That would make it 'post-flood' I do believe.

Also, did Adam, or Eve, have a navel? If not...........????

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sorry boys. The truth detector has found you out!

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Discover how these trees were found and where they live. Learn of their unique strategies for survival. The focus will be on the White-Inyo mountain range of California.


That would make it 'post-flood' I do believe.

Also, did Adam, or Eve, have a navel? If not...........????

inaccurate information. it is not the oldest living plant but rather the oldest tree.
but the record of tree rings goes back about 12K years.

1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the rainforests of Tasmania. Scientists estimated the age of the plant using a nearby fossil of an identical plant. It was found to be over 43,000 years old! The plants appear to be sterile - incapable of producing flowers and viable seeds. Lomatia is triploid, that is, it has three sets of chromosomes instead of two. Because of this it is unable to sexually reproduce. The clonal thickets reproduce vegetatively by root suckering. Fossil leaves found in a late Pleistocene deposit may be genetically identical to present-day plants. The plant is a rare freak of nature whose origins and age are as yet unknown.

August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old. Researchers are still trying to verify the growth rate to determine is that age is an accurate measure.

March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old. This aging method also relies on determining the plant's growth rate. Scientists are stilly verifying the growth and performing genetic analyses of neighboring specimens to determine if they are from the same organism.

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Scientists discovered a giant, and very ancient clone of the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert in California they estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old.

from: http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

 

[ebia]

Sorry boys. The truth detector has found you out!

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/images/title4.gif
http://www.sonic.net/cgi-bin/millers3/rand_image.cgi
http://www.sonic.net/cgi-bin/millers3/cone_count.cgi Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Discover how these trees were found and where they live. Learn of their unique strategies for survival. The focus will be on the White-Inyo mountain range of California.


That would make it 'post-flood' I do believe.

What exactly do you think you've disproved?

The question isn't "what is the oldest currently living tree", but "how far back does the record of tree-rings go? By lining up the patterns of bands in different trees that lived at different time we can trace the record back before any single specimen.

Then there is the seperate question of "what is the oldest living thing and (whatever it is) how did it survive the flood?

Which of those do you think your data refutes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

inaccurate information. it is not the oldest living plant but rather the oldest tree.
but the record of tree rings goes back about 12K years.


from: http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

Reread what you posted. There is no proof, just conjecture. What is your point?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What exactly do you think you've disproved?

The question isn't "what is the oldest currently living tree", but "how far back does the record of tree-rings go? By lining up the patterns of bands in different trees that lived at different time we can trace the record back before any single specimen.

Then there is the seperate question of "what is the oldest living thing and (whatever it is) how did it survive the flood?

Which of those do you think your data refutes?

Sorry, I was aiming my comment at this post, which I took to mean that there were living trees over 6000 years old:

"The trouble is that we do look, and the rings are there. If the world were 6000 years old then we ought to very quickly find the point where these stories all go blank - and it's not there. The stories just go back and back."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Reread what you posted. There is no proof, just conjecture. What is your point?

science doesn't do proof.
it does evidence.

my point?
there is lots of evidence that there was not a global flood, these living plants are part of that evidence.

 

[ebia]

Sorry, I was aiming my comment at this post, which I took to mean that there were living trees over 6000 years old:

"The trouble is that we do look, and the rings are there. If the world were 6000 years old then we ought to very quickly find the point where these stories all go blank - and it's not there. The stories just go back and back."

Then perhaps you would withdraw the insinuation that I was lying:

Sorry boys. The truth detector has found you out!

 

[Pats]

implies not infers. If you or I infer something from what the bible says then the bible implies that. The bible is not a thinking being so it can't infer anything - inference is making the deduction. (Sorry, but one of my pet annoyances is people mixing up imply and infer).

Thank you for your clarrification. I'm actually annoyed with myself for making the error... I shouldn't post when as sleep deprived as I've been lately... but, back to the topic at hand....

But back to the point, do you think Adam was created with memories or not? Please consider the implications of your answer, whichever way you go.

I haven't thought a lot about it, to be honest. I'll have to consider... It's obvious that he already knew how to talk and seemed to have a knowledge of how things worked, and God did teach him a great many things... at this time I'd have to say that he was created with abilities such as language... but did he remember being taught it by a mother? I'd have to say I don't think so, no.

Ancient genealogies exist to make theological and political points, not be be historically accurate. Hence kings like Alexander traced his line back to the "gods". The biblical geneologies make a point about the nature and significance of the people involved - imposing historical accuracy upon them misses their point.

But all this is you avoiding the question - if trees were created with tree rings that tell a history then how do you deal with that? How do you deal with the fact that the universe tells us about a history far older than 6,000 years through tree rings, ice cores, the light from distant stars, and a million and one other ways if that story never happened? Christ spoke this universe and hence that story - did he lie?

This is where your logic losses me. My genetic code tells a history too, but just because Adam's was first doesn't mean it was lying.

I cannot see how you are more comfortable with viewing the geneoligies in Genesis, and through out the Bible for that matter, as matters of theology and politics and not see a need for their historical accuracy.

While calling God a liar if he did indeed create a one billion year old star as if it had been there for a billion years.....

Frankly, in my POV, God and Mosses would be the liars if Genisis were allegorical, especially the geneolagies.... That seems much more profound a lie than man's wisdom thinking he can know everything about a tree or a star that has been here far longer than he and was placed here by God Himself.

I just don't think the entirety of the creation process as preformed by our Almight Creator is comprehensable to mere mortals.

The Scriptures, however, as diverse in their interpretations as they may be, are here to guide our understanding. Writing out false geneolagies would seem to be the lie over a tree stump...


Since surely no one is interested in reading my responses to everyone who responded to me, I'll sum up.

I am new to examining my theology in this way, and appreciate the conversation and feedback. I'm not into debating this topic from a scientific standpoint... yet.

From a Biblical standpoint, "lean not on your own understanding, acknowledge me in all your ways and I will direct your path."

 

[ebia]

This is where your logic losses me. My genetic code tells a history too, but just because Adam's was first doesn't mean it was lying.

If it tells a story that never actually happened then it what sense could that story be said to be true?

I cannot see how you are more comfortable with viewing the geneoligies in Genesis, and through out the Bible for that matter, as matters of theology and politics and not see a need for their historical accuracy.

Because they are true anyway. Even if the stories in Genesis are historically accurate that's clearly not their primary purpose which is to tell us about God, creation and us and how each relates to the other. That remains whether not the stories are historically accurate - they are true either way.

The story told by a tree-ring is purely a factual one. Unless I'm missing something it can only be factually true or false - really can't see how the story told by tree rings or the light from stars can be any other sort of truth.

Frankly, in my POV, God and Mosses would be the liars if Genisis were allegorical, especially the geneolagies....

That's because you are treating them as though they were geneologies in the 20th century mould. They are not; they convey a truth that has nothing to do with historical fact. If you insist on reading Narnia as history does that make CS Lewis a liar?

That seems much more profound a lie than man's wisdom thinking he can know everything about a tree or a star that has been here far longer than he and was placed here by God Himself.

We don't know everything about a tree or a star, but we can read story contained in it's rings or it's light just as surely as we can read the pages of Genesis.

I just don't think the entirety of the creation process as preformed by our Almight Creator is comprehensable to mere mortals.

No-one is claiming it is.

The Scriptures, however, as diverse in their interpretations as they may be, are here to guide our understanding. Writing out false geneolagies would seem to be the lie over a tree stump...

The geneologies are not false, they are just not history. History is not the only sort of truth. History is inconsequental compared with the sort of truth the bible exists to teach us.

 

[Pats]

I just don't think the entirety of the creation process as preformed by our Almight Creator is comprehensable to mere mortals.

No-one is claiming it is.

It would seem that to accept human teaching over biblical would be to take man's theory over God's word. Especially when all scientific facts don't support evolution?

 

[Dannager]

It would seem that to accept human teaching over biblical would be to take man's theory over God's word. Especially when all scientific facts don't support evolution?

All scientific facts either have no impact on evolutionary biology or support them. We have uncovered no scientific facts that contradict the predictions made by evolutionary theory.

 

[ebia]

It would seem that to accept human teaching over biblical would be to take man's theory over God's word.

No-one is doing that. We are using what we learn from one thing spoken by God (Creation) to inform how we understand another (Genesis). To do otherwise is to assume our understanding of one (Genesis) is infallible and that God is lying through the other (Creation). Once we realise that Genesis can be true without being historical there is no conflict - both are true.

If you insist on Genesis being historical (a strange position to take since it's human authors would not have distinguished between history and myth in the way we do) then you set what God has spoken through Genesis in conflict with what God has spoken through Creation. If you take a more ancient position that allegory is as pure a form of truth as any other, then there is no conflict.

Especially when all scientific facts don't support evolution?

All scientific facts are consistent with evolution.

 

[Pats]

Macro evolution is unobserved--not scientific fact.

The history of creation was documented for us in the Scriptures.

 

[Dannager]

Macro evolution is unobserved--not scientific fact.

If by macroevolution you mean speciation (the definition the scientific community uses), then it has been observed. Please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

The history of creation was documented for us in the Scriptures.

Not by anyone who observed it.

 

[Pats]

Not by anyone who observed it.

In my view, God inspired the scriptures and lead men, including Moses, on what to write. So, I'd say He observed it.

I'm unconvinced by the TE view.

 

[ebia]

In my view, God inspired the scriptures and lead men, including Moses, on what to write. So, I'd say He observed it.

And he wrote how He did it into creation itself. Then, in Genesis, he inspired some people to write about why he did it.

I'm unconvinced by the TE view.

How can you be convinced or unconvinced about something you don't understand?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then perhaps you would withdraw the insinuation that I was lying:

Sure, as soon as the scientists revise the article that I posted. (I didn't write it.) You guys should talk to each other. We are just consumers out here and have faith that you know what you are talking about. (Right.)