...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[TLK Valentine]

I agree -- but it didn't grow old, it came into existence old.

With a fake history and everything?

 

[durangodawood]

With a fake history and everything?

It seems weird that tree ring patterns would consistently extend back thousands of years prior to creation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It seems weird that tree ring patterns would consistently extend back thousands of years prior to creation.

weirder still that God would carve all of those ring patterns in when they serve no purpose -- just to simulate a past which never happened.

Tricky one, that God...

 

[CabVet]

I agree -- but it didn't grow old, it came into existence old.

Except that tree rings are formed only because of one process: when a growing tree is exposed to seasonal changes in weather (wet/dry, cold/hot). The formation of rings is so precise that rings of trees in the same region (exposed to same weather), even those of different species, can be matched ring to ring because their growth rate is the same.

Now, when God creates a tree ex-nihilo, there is no need to put those growth rings there for the simple reason that the tree did not experience any growth. In other words, the trees have rings because they experienced growth, not because they are old. Age has nothing to do with it, history does. It just so happens that history of growth correlates very well (99.999%) with age since there is only one growth season per year. So we calculate the age from the history.

If your "embedded age" idea were correct, we should be able to count back to 4,000 in tree rings and the trail would stop there. Unfortunately for embedded age, that is not the case as in nature we find broken lines of rings going back at least 10,000 years.

Here an interesting article from a source that I think you should find reliable:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php

 

[Split Rock]

That, by definition is deism; and we're not deists.

It is a desistic view, I agree. However, it makes much more sense to me. It also avoids all these problems like, "if I create my perfect man creation, how old should I make him?" "Should I give him a bellybutton?" "How many rings do I give the trees I make?" "How much sedimentary layers do I create in the earth I made from scratch?" "Should I leave evidence that I made these things?" etc.

 

[Split Rock]

Except that tree rings are formed only because of one process: when a growing tree is exposed to seasonal changes in weather (wet/dry, cold/hot). The formation of rings is so precise that rings of trees in the same region (exposed to same weather), even those of different species, can be matched ring to ring because their growth rate is the same.

Now, when God creates a tree ex-nihilo, there is no need to put those growth rings there for the simple reason that the tree did not experience any growth. In other words, the trees have rings because they experienced growth, not because they are old. Age has nothing to do with it, history does. It just so happens that history of growth correlates very well (99.999%) with age since there is only one growth season per year. So we calculate the age from the history.

If your "embedded age" idea were correct, we should be able to count back to 4,000 in tree rings and the trail would stop there. Unfortunately for embedded age, that is not the case as in nature we find broken lines of rings going back at least 10,000 years.

Here an interesting article from a source that I think you should find reliable:

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

A very good point. I have been trying to convince AVET that there is a history on this planet longer than 6,100 years, and this is a good example of that. I would also like to point out that tree rings are not at all necessary for a "mature" tree created from scratch. You can create a mature tree with a thick trunk with no rings at all... the rings don't do anything for the tree. You can create wood cell layers without them, assuming you can create them at all.

 

[durangodawood]

If tree ring histories were sort of "faked" into the world at the moment of creation... then we truly live in a stone-washed universe.

Yikes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If tree ring histories were sort of "faked" into the world at the moment of creation... then we truly live in a stone-washed universe.

Yikes.

I can't think of a worse hell -- except perhaps a polyester universe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure. As far as i can tell no one ever came into existence already an adult.

Then I see where the problem lies in this discussion: your science is interfering with your understanding of Genesis 1.

I think you mean Genesis 2.

 

[AV1611VET]

A very good point. I have been trying to convince AVET that there is a history on this planet longer than 6,100 years, and this is a good example of that. I would also like to point out that tree rings are not at all necessary for a "mature" tree created from scratch. You can create a mature tree with a thick trunk with no rings at all... the rings don't do anything for the tree. You can create wood cell layers without them, assuming you can create them at all.

These trees that supposedly record a history longer than 6100 years ... do they record a global flood in Noah's time?

I suspect it's more than just Ussher's dating I would have to be jettisoning if I accepted dendrochronology.

I don't buy dendrochronology on principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you mean Genesis 2.

No, sir ... Genesis 1.

 

[TLK Valentine]

These trees that supposedly record a history longer than 6100 years ... do they record a global flood in Noah's time?

I suspect it's more than just Ussher's dating I would have to be jettisoning if I accepted dendrochronology.

I don't buy dendrochronology on principle.

By "principle," do you mean "insecurity"? What's wrong with jettisoning things if they don't fit the facts? You certainly have no problem jettisoning things if they don't fit your desires...

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, sir ... Genesis 1.

Well, there's no mention of any adults in Genesis 1, so either you made a mistake and meant Genesis 2, or you're adding to the Bible... again.

 

[pjnlsn]

These trees that supposedly record a history longer than 6100 years ... do they record a global flood in Noah's time?

I suspect it's more than just Ussher's dating I would have to be jettisoning if I accepted dendrochronology.

I don't buy dendrochronology on principle.

Taken together, all information on the dates of various objects has an extremely high likelihood that there are objects older than 6100 years old. Or that have been in existence for longer.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's wrong with jettisoning things if they don't fit the facts?

Concerning the moon, the Bible says ...

Genesis 1:16a And God made...

Am I supposed to jettison that in respect to one of six different sets of "facts" ... all of which exclude God?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Taken together, all information on the dates of various objects has an extremely high likelihood that there are objects older than 6100 years old. Or that have been in existence for longer.

Indeed -- and there are all signs that point to either a genuine history... or a "divine" forgery.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, there's no mention of any adults in Genesis 1, so either you made a mistake and meant Genesis 2, or you're adding to the Bible... again.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taken together, all information on the dates of various objects has an extremely high likelihood that there are objects older than 6100 years old. Or that have been in existence for longer.

But they didn't grow that old.

 

[durangodawood]

Concerning the moon, the Bible says ...

Genesis 1:16a And God made...

Am I supposed to jettison that in respect to one of six different sets of "facts" ... all of which exclude God?

I dont think there's really any choice but to view the specific details of the creation story as mythical.

Mythical is not the same as false. Its just a different way a finding meaning in the text.
.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Concerning the moon, the Bible says ...

Genesis 1:16a And God made...

Am I supposed to jettison that in respect to one of six different sets of "facts" ... all of which exclude God?

sets of facts -- those would be hypotheses.

And would you kindly point out where in any of them it says that God is not responsible?