Pre: Why I know the flood is a fantasy

[WhiteMageGirl]

Ok, so in the next week or so I will finish writting my conclusive can't be denied evidence of why the flood didn't happen(complete with timeline). But before I do, I would like for creationists to address and make objections to my main and strongest point.

Based on the bible and only the bible:
AiG gives an exact date for the flood as 2304 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BC[/FONT] +/- 11 years.

Another site lists it as 2500 bc

However, the oldest living tree is 4,767 years old based on it's ring count. Which makes it well over 100 years older than the oldest bible based date I can find for the flood.

Which means either:
1. The flood didn't happen
2. The bible based date for the flood is wrong
3. The tree isn't that old
4. The flood wasn't world wide, or the flood waters didn't reach 10,400 feet above see level.
5. The tree was uprooted during the flood and replanted by the flood on the layers of rocks deposited by the flood.


Creationists keep in mind the age for the tree is based on the ring count alone radiocarbon dating plays no role in finding the age. Futhermore, since the tree was planted after creation, it couldn't be created with age.

Pick one of my provided answers or make your own and please be detailed in your reasoning.

 

[RedAndy]

Answer 3. Tree ring dating is flawed. How could a tree possibly know how long a year is?

(ops)

 

[Cabal]

Because trees obviously haven't adapted their growth patterns to synchronise with the planetary year.

Yeesh.

 

[RedAndy]

Cabal: "ops" stands for Obligatory Poe Smiley, and is designed to indicate that I was merely masquerading as a Creationist. I'm not really one, I was merely providing a convincing impersonation, seeing as there are so few around these days.

 

[lemmings]

The days have been slowing down ever since creation because of the moon. 4000 years ago, a day was many times faster than it is today. Since there are 365 days in a year, multiple years passed for every orbit around the sun. Tree rings only count how many years have passed so they are out of sync with the Earth’s orbit.

ops

 

[The Nihilist]

The days have been slowing down ever since creation because of the moon. 4000 years ago, a day was many times faster than it is today. Since there are 365 days in a year, multiple years passed for every orbit around the sun. Tree rings only count how many years have passed so they are out of sync with the Earth’s orbit.

ops

This also provides a handy explanation of how Methuselah reached the ripe old age of 969, while Abraham only cleared 200 or so.

 

[lemmings]

This also provides a handy explanation of how Methuselah reached the ripe old age of 969, while Abraham only cleared 200 or so.

Yep. It also explains why there were giants in the earth in those days. With the Earth spinning so fast, the gravity must have been weaker. A low gravity environment will allow people to grow to enormous heights.

 

[Impaler]

Yep. It also explains why there were giants in the earth in those days. With the Earth spinning so fast, the gravity must have been weaker. A low gravity environment will allow people to grow to enormous heights.

Kent Hovind's medical advice at its finest.

 

[Fear]

It's common knowledge that a global flood didn't occur, based on many different fields of science.

A biblical flood, from a modern perspective, has many negative implications. It would make God into a trickster and a slayer of billions of innocent persons and animals.

 

[lemmings]

It's common knowledge that a global flood didn't occur, based on many different fields of science.

A biblical flood, from a modern perspective, has many negative implications. It would make God into a trickster and a slayer of billions of innocent persons and animals.

Common knowledge? A third of the population in the United States believes that the flood did occur. 66% success rate is not good when you disproved something hundreds of years ago.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

It's common knowledge that a global flood didn't occur, based on many different fields of science. A biblical flood, from a modern perspective, has many negative implications. It would make God into a trickster and a slayer of billions of innocent persons and animals.

The thing is, I want to have an argument that's simple enough for creationists to understand. And this is just what I have created.

 

[Impaler]

The thing is, I want to have an argument that's simple enough for creationists to understand. And this is just what I have created.

Unfortunately even that won't do it. Creationists tend to misinterpret most arguements that go against their beliefs, no matter how simple.

Creationists claim that up to three rings can form a year. That alone will be enough for creationists to dismiss it out of hand. Unfortunately we can tell when these extra rings have formed and the odds of it happening 4,000 years in a row, without breaks, is extremely low.

 

[MarcusHill]

I'll bet that tree is sitting through several geologic layers.

 

[mrswebber]

I have my own thoughts and beliefs about the flood. However, I will keep that to myself.
I would like to say though, if you were a country bumpkin, (like myself) you would know that a tree can take two sometimes even three rings, if it is a wet year.
A ring per year is only a guide, it is not an exact!

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I have my own thoughts and beliefs about the flood. However, I will keep that to myself.
I would like to say though, if you were a country bumpkin, (like myself) you would know that a tree can take two sometimes even three rings, if it is a wet year.
A ring per year is only a guide, it is not an exact!

Is has already been pointed out that we a) know what it looks like if such a thing happens and b) that the chances of this happening for several thousand years is vanishingly small.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I have my own thoughts and beliefs about the flood. However, I will keep that to myself.
I would like to say though, if you were a country bumpkin, (like myself) you would know that a tree can take two sometimes even three rings, if it is a wet year.
A ring per year is only a guide, it is not an exact!

To ignore the great store of science that all points to a Earth of 4.5 billion years, and life being on this planet for 3.5 billion years is absolute stupidity.

All creationists that purposely ignore data are stupid, ignorant, indoctrinated and above all a danger to children.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have my own thoughts and beliefs about the flood. However, I will keep that to myself.
I would like to say though, if you were a country bumpkin, (like myself) you would know that a tree can take two sometimes even three rings, if it is a wet year.
A ring per year is only a guide, it is not an exact!

Some trees do make multiple rings on occasion but pines rarely do and more often have missing rings. In any case cross-datiing of multiple ring sequences gets around this problem for dendrochronology.

I think a more amusing aspect of AiG's flood date of 2304 BC is that it is during the 6th Egyptian dynasty. By this time there have been a least 40 recorded Kings of Egypt, not to mention the history of predynastic Egypt. It is also about the time that Sargon of Akkad conquered Sumer and there were long established civilizations in Europe, India and China at this time as well people all over the world who, like the Bristlecone Pine Methuselah, all failed to even notice this supposed worldwide flood.

Osgood has this obvious statement on the AiG page.
The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BC[/FONT] means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years. The significance of this fact will be pursued in later articles

I have not seen these later articles. The real significance of the fact is that it is simply not possible to fit all of human history, not to mention neolithic and paleothic archelogical results into 4311 (now) years since the allegedly global flood.

 

[Basket]

I was looking for the oldest living tree to see how they measured its age, and I came across this:

answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/living_tree.asp

It's talking about some other really old trees. The article says that the flood happened 5,000 years ago. I don't know how they came up with that number, but there it is.

 

[Basket]

terrain.org/essays/14/cohen.htm

Here's another article, rather long-winded, but interesting. It says the oldest known tree was around 5,000 years old, but they cut it down so it's dead now. I've only skimmed the article so far, so I'm not sure of the details.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

I have my own thoughts and beliefs about the flood. However, I will keep that to myself.
I would like to say though, if you were a country bumpkin, (like myself) you would know that a tree can take two sometimes even three rings, if it is a wet year.
A ring per year is only a guide, it is not an exact!

A tree is not a tree is not a tree. Which basically means only some families of trees have this capability. But it is very rare in the family of trees I am refering to; a more common problem is missing rings. Indicating the tree is older than the estimated age. To use that argument truely shows you're ignoring the most absolute basic facts. It is not truth you seek.

You can go to creation wiki all day long.

What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total

No citation, no links, just a pack of creationist lies. Which is just what creation wiki is all about, lies.