Problems with a 6000 year old earth.

worship4ever · Jul 1, 2003

Okay, do you think its possible to count the rings on a dead tree, plus the rings that appear on a living tree, attached as one.

http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html

Good link about global flood and tree rings.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm

Arikay · Jul 1, 2003

Your right, an OK article on Tree ring dating. I just happen to have already written something on it awhile ago.

---

Hello,

Although its not the greatest of articles (ill get to the article in a second. ) I do find it interesting that the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) accepts Dendrochronology (dating by tree rings) as a good dating method.

This is important because Dendrochronology has dated a living tree back 4,767 years. This is older than the YEC flood date, of around 4,400 years ago. The same area that has the 4,767 year old tree, also has old tree rings that have dated back to around 9,000 years ago, predating the standard YEC date of a 6,000 year old earth.

Now, to get to the article.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm

Except for their ending most of my comments are just corrections.

The remarkable fact about the tree is that it is noted as the oldest known living thing in the world, far surpassing the vastly more famous Sequoia.

Its the oldest living tree in the world, but its not the oldest living thing. Currently King Clone, a creosote bush, in Southern California (Cali seems to get the old things) is believed to be over 11,000 years old. Last year another creosote bush was found that might be older than King Clone. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020130-1443-wst-ancientshrub.html)

Through the study of annual growth rings of these trees, a fairly precise method of absolute dating has been obtained.

Just thought I would point out this line in the article.

the summer of 1957he discovered "Methuselah," a tree dating back 4600 years.

It has now been dated at 4,767 (well 4,768 counting this year) Years old.

did reach a growth-ring series of about 11,300 rings, but has led to much debate over the possibility of multiple ring growth during many periods of climatic history. [6][7] This would allow for a more recent dating than the individual growth rings show.

[And]

Experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons. [6] Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods.

This is why they cross date the tree ring findings. Not every tree creates a double ring in the same place, so By getting many samples from the area they can date each sample and discover the false double rings and eliminate most of them.
Its also been suggested that a tree may skip a ring more than it will create a double ring. However, again, by comparing multiple trees they can average it out and get a correct date of the tree.

So, in a well researched area, double rings dont pose a problem to the correct age of the tree.

creation had to involve some superficial appearance of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place.

[and]

Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory."

Unfortunatly there is a problem with this theory. Its impossible to prove or disprove. So its not too good of a theory. Currently it will stay an assumption, as it is impossible to show the appearance of age. So its more of a scape goat than a real theory.

Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today.

I hope they arent basing this claim on the same data that AIG has based their claims on, as it has been shown that they missused the dateing method to get those faulty results.

Even with only minor adjustments in the growth-ring to-year correlation, most creation scientists would feel quite comfortable with a resulting date of creation in the 6000-7000 B.C. range.

I dont know why we need to be making adjustments. However Im not sure how many 6,000 year YECs would be happy with a creation date 8,000-10,000 years ago. This date also is under the age of the King Clone (and possibly other) bush.

We don't know for sure, but dendrochronology is certainly a science that provides facts which evolutionists do not care to publicize.

Yep, and thats why I wrote this, to try and hide the data.
Although I didnt see any facts in this article that are a danger to evolution. They seem to be more a danger for YEC as it falsifies the standard YEC belief of a 6,000 year old earth.

For more information about Dendrochronology a good basic site is, http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html
It includes information about the Bristlecone pine and Dendrochronology.

-Ari

worship4ever said:
Okay, do you think its possible to count the rings on a dead tree, plus the rings that appear on a living tree, attached as one.

http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html

Good link about global flood and tree rings.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Arikay said:
I dont know why we need to be making adjustments. However Im not sure how many 6,000 year YECs would be happy with a creation date 8,000-10,000 years ago. This date also is under the age of the King Clone (and possibly other) bush.

The 8,000 tp 10,000 year date is when the land that had been covered by ice became habitable again. It is believed this took two waves,first the soft wood and then the hard wood, before man was able to make use of this land again. It could have taken two to three thousand years.

As far as I know there are only two YEC theorys. One where the Genesis days are literal 24 hour days. The other theory is where a day was 1000 years, putting the beginning at about 12,970 years ago. Science feels that the end of the last major ice age was about 15,000 to 12,000 years ago. So by 12.970 most of what was going to be flooded would have been flooded, and most of the ice would have been melted.

There was a brief mini ice age about 6 to 7000 years ago. When this ice melted, that could have been the cause of Noah's flood.

Jet Black · Jul 1, 2003

JohnR7 said:
There was a brief mini ice age about 6 to 7000 years ago. When this ice melted, that could have been the cause of Noah's flood.

but it wouldn't have exactly caused the water to rise at 6 inches per minute up to a haight of 6 miles though.

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Jet Black said:
but it wouldn't have exactly caused the water to rise at 6 inches per minute up to a haight of 6 miles though.

Geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman have done about 30 years worth of work to try and show that the Black Sea flood is Noah's flood. Although they have not made any attempt to get the dates to line up.

Arikay · Jul 1, 2003

A couple problems with this,

1) As Jet Black slightly stated, it doesnt fit with the reading of the storm in Noah Ark.
2) The "flood" of the end of the ice age would Not cover everything, only coastal areas. So it wouldnt have been too destructive on a global scale.
3) This flood would have been very slow, again nothing near the devastation of the Noahs Ark flood.
4) The flood waters have never receeded as the bible suggests happend.

A Big problem with the Gap theory is that it still doesnt fit with the evidence. The Biggest problem (to creationists) is that not only does it not fit with the evidence, but it doesnt seem to fit well with the bible.

JohnR7 said:
The 8,000 tp 10,000 year date is when the land that had been covered by ice became habitable again. It is believed this took two waves,first the soft wood and then the hard wood, before man was able to make use of this land again. It could have taken two to three thousand years.

As far as I know there are only two YEC theorys. One where the Genesis days are literal 24 hour days. The other theory is where a day was 1000 years, putting the beginning at about 12,970 years ago. Science feels that the end of the last major ice age was about 15,000 to 12,000 years ago. So by 12.970 most of what was going to be flooded would have been flooded, and most of the ice would have been melted.

There was a brief mini ice age about 6 to 7000 years ago. When this ice melted, that could have been the cause of Noah's flood.

Jet Black · Jul 1, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman have done about 30 years worth of work to try and show that the Black Sea flood is Noah's flood. Although they have not made any attempt to get the dates to line up.

good for them. what is your point?

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Jet Black said:
good for them. what is your point?

The point is that Noah's flood seemed to be quite a bit faster than the rest of the world wide flooding, because the water was being held back by a nature land dam. Where the rest of the world wide floods were simply a result of the ice melting and the water did not rise as fast.

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Arikay said:
A Big problem with the Gap theory is that it still doesnt fit with the evidence.

Water and oil do not mix and you can not blend truth with error. Your hypothesis is that the Theory is in error. My hypothesis is that your "evidence" is in error.

Jet Black · Jul 1, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Water and oil do not mix and you can not blend truth with error. Your hypothesis is that the Theory is in error. My hypothesis is that your "evidence" is in error.

you assume to have prior knowledge of the truth, and so evidence is irrelevant to you anyway.

Jet Black · Jul 1, 2003

JohnR7 said:
The point is that Noah's flood seemed to be quite a bit faster than the rest of the world wide flooding, because the water was being held back by a nature land dam. Where the rest of the world wide floods were simply a result of the ice melting and the water did not rise as fast.

If that is your theory, but there is more than likely evidence against it, and would the water be 6 miles high?

Arikay · Jul 1, 2003

John: When presented with the thought that either the evidence is wrong, or my interpretation is wrong, I would go with my interpretation first then evidence second.
Unless you are god and know all, wouldnt you do the same?

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Jet Black said:
If that is your theory, but there is more than likely evidence against it, and would the water be 6 miles high?

That is another topic. The Hebrew word for mountains is also the word used for hills. I believe that the hills that were covered were the foothills created during the ice age. The mountains on the other side of those hills held the water in. You can look at a elevation map of that area to get a general idea of what was flooded.

Noah's flood does not have to be the Black Sea Flood. There are at least two or three floods in that area of the world that would qualify. But the idea that the Black Sea flood was the same as Noah's flood is the one that science is going with right now.

Mechanical Bliss · Jul 1, 2003

The point I think that people are trying to make is that these passages:

Genesis 7:4

Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Genesis 7:14

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.

Genesis 7:19

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

Genesis 7:23

Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

all must be false for what you are saying to be true. Not only that, you have no evidence for what you are saying, but that's a whole different point.

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2003

Mechanical Bliss said:
all must be false for what you are saying to be true.

Genesis 7:4b I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made."

If you look up the Hebrew word for "earth" it is "Adamah" meaning the Land of Eden that Adam and Eve were created in. It is not the word "erets" that would indicate the whole world.

Arikay · Jul 1, 2003

Yep, the problem is that your Ice age flood or ice age itself still wouldnt do this.

The question is, that when it says that all animals with the breath of life in them dies, would this also mean Whales, since they the same as Mammals (breath air) but they just happen to swim?

JohnR7 said:
Genesis 7:4b I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made."

If you look up the Hebrew word for "earth" it is "Adamah" meaning the Land of Eden that Adam and Eve were created in. It is not the word "erets" that would indicate the whole world.

Mechanical Bliss · Jul 1, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Genesis 7:4b I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made."

If you look up the Hebrew word for "earth" it is "Adamah" meaning the Land of Eden that Adam and Eve were created in. It is not the word "erets" that would indicate the whole world.

This still neglects the fact that the destruction is supposedly all inclusive. Of course those passages are false anyway because no global flooding event occurred as it says.

JohnR7 · Jul 2, 2003

Mechanical Bliss said:
This still neglects the fact that the destruction is supposedly all inclusive. Of course those passages are false anyway because no global flooding event occurred as it says.

You can believe what you want. I just believe that Noah's flood was in the land of Adamia or Eden. The only plants and animals involved where those that were biodiverse to that area. For example look at wheat. This is the only area in the world where it grows wild. Then go to Armenia where the Ark landed. This is the area where they feel that wheat & barley was first cultivated.

JohnR7 · Jul 2, 2003

Arikay said:
Yep, the problem is that your Ice age flood or ice age itself still wouldnt do this.

The question is, that when it says that all animals with the breath of life in them dies, would this also mean Whales, since they the same as Mammals (breath air) but they just happen to swim?

Again, I believe we are talking about the Biodiverse land of Adamia.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

This is not a word used in Genesis Chapter one.

neshamah, Hebrew 5397, Strongs
neshamah, nesh-aw-maw'; from Hebrew 5395 (nasham); a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect, or (concrete) an animal :- blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

FEZZILLA · Jul 3, 2003

God created the earth in six litteral days. Evening and morning the first-sixth days. The first day was the rotation of the earth governed by the glory of God. I believe the first day gives evidence that the bible was not written by men but rather guided by the holy spirit. Pagan culture always looked at the sun and assumed that the sun came first then the earth. God breaks human psychology right from the beginning! Sence God is above human thought,lets give God cretit for creating the world in six litteral days. Iv studied this topic for so long now,yet,im surprised at all the christians that try to incorperate evolution with creation. the history of the gap is simple: Evolution comes out;and every christian is tying to find a way to please this new scientific thoery with one of their own. Before evolution,there was the six litteral days of God creation. Theistic evolution is also based on Carbon dating which as been proven unreliable. I think a better term should be:Kirby dating. yes,kirby dating!
Get your Kirby dating machine now! A salesman with a salespitch. thats all it ever was and thats all it ever will be. Im personally ordering my very own Kirby K-14 dating machine. It comes with the traditional vaccum cleaner and attactments.
When one gives up the theory of carbon dating.Then ones gives up theist evolution. Read the book,"Bones of Contention",by Marvin L.Lubenow.
There was never any flood of Lucifer!!! That is such a STUPID doctrine.

Problems with a 6000 year old earth.

Active Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

HI

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

HI

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Well-Known Member

HI

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency