Tree Rings a Problem for 6,000 Year Old Earth

[Dale]

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?

"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."


Link
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5138621

 

[Chinchilla]

It's like expecting explanation of Donkey talking
We only believe it because God said so
There was no death before sin , can't be evolution .

Genesis 2 says animals were created after men aswell on 6th day , contradicting the theory of evolution , Adam named them all at once , not one every few thousands years as they were evolving .

God can create a tree which looks like it would be 6000 years old but it's one day old , just as he didn't create baby Adam and baby Eve .

 

[bcbsr]

It's like expecting explanation of Donkey talking
We only believe it because God said so
There was no death before sin , can't be evolution .

Genesis 2 says animals were created after men aswell on 6th day , contradicting the theory of evolution , Adam named them all at once , not one every few thousands years as they were evolving .

God can create a tree which looks like it would be 6000 years old but it's one day old , just as he didn't create baby Adam and baby Eve .

There was no death for people (of whom there were only two sustained by the tree of life), but says nothing of animals not dying. In fact how was it when God warned them of death, they understood the concept if they had never seen it before?

 

[Chinchilla]

There was no death for people (of whom there were only two sustained by the tree of life), but says nothing of animals not dying. In fact how was it when God warned them of death, they understood the concept if they had never seen it before?

no death of animals either , Lion eat straw

Isaiah 11:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[majj27]

God can create a tree which looks like it would be 6000 years old but it's one day old , just as he didn't create baby Adam and baby Eve .

i.e. The Omphalos Conjecture. An unscientific dodge which ultimately is nothing more than a specific application of philosophical skepticism, and in the end is pretty much useless.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?

"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."


Link
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5138621

What calls itself science stands against God. There are all sorts of tricks they use to try to convince people that they are genuinely discrediting what the Bible says. But, the reality is they are deceived and trying to force that deception on those who should understand the games being played.

If God is real and God, in fact, created everything out of nothing (which defies scientific reason), then God is fully capable of starting with a tree that had already defied the assumptions that science would later put upon it.

I love what Chinchilla said in comparing with Adam and Eve. There is no suggestion that God created them as babies.

 

[sdowney717]

There was no death for people (of whom there were only two sustained by the tree of life), but says nothing of animals not dying. In fact how was it when God warned them of death, they understood the concept if they had never seen it before?

I suppose if there was a dissagree button it would useless.
For Adam and Eve and all things alive, there was no death till they sinned.

There was no sustaining from the tree of life for Adam and Eve. Man is not allowed to eat after the fall, and we can know they did not eat of the tree of life before the fall as God says if they did they would have lived forever.

Genesis 3
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?

"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."


Link
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5138621

First, you're conflating what many Young Earth Creationists believe about the age of the Earth with what some Creationists believe about the date of the End Times. The two are not the same, nor are the two groups necessarily the same.

As far as tree rings go: Creation.com Search: Tree Rings
In regard to Bristlecone Pines, see this Article: Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines

Quote:

"Perhaps the best evidence that some BCPs can grow multiple rings per year is the fact that it has already been demonstrated. Lammerts, a creationist, induced multiple ring growth in sapling BCPs by simply simulating a two week drought.3 Some dismiss this evidence, saying that while multiplicity has been demonstrated in young BCPs, it hasn’t been demonstrated in mature BCPs and therefore may not occur in mature BCPs.4 While this hypothesis could be true, surely the burden of proof should be on those who propose that what happens in immature trees doesn’t happen in mature trees.

An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.’5 If an expert like Mirov readily accepted multiplicity in these BCPs, then perhaps the doubters of this notion should at least give the evidence a serious examination.

It is important to understand that the idea that mature trees can grow more than one ring per year is not a highly speculative hypothesis. It is well established that mature trees of many species of both angiosperms and gymnosperms, including other species of the genus Pinus, can grow multiple rings per year, especially under the types of conditions in which some of the BCPs in the White Mountains grow. Glock et al. published a large study in 1960 documenting the common occurrence of multiple ring growth per year, under conditions similar to those in the White Mountains.2 They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer6 (that is, only one ring)."

Just providing resources for those interested in looking into the tree ring issue.

 

[dqhall]

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?

"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."


Link
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5138621

There are over 76,000 species of animals, reptiles and amphibians on land. They could not fit in one ark, much less survive in it for 40 days and nights. There are close to a million species of insects. Many of these could not survive global flooding. It took millions of years for life to become established across the globe. Not like these creatures could tread water for 40 days and nights. The story of Noah is not scientific.

In fact the Bible was written by human hands and not entirely by the hand of God. Some verses are good and other verses are not. God cannot be reduced to a few hundred pages in a book written eons ago. God is alive. Science can not measure God. The results of God's work may be seen, without seeing God's footprints, for God is spirit.

1 Timothy 1:4 "neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith--"

 

[Chinchilla]

i.e. The Omphalos Conjecture. An unscientific dodge which ultimately is nothing more than a specific application of philosophical skepticism, and in the end is pretty much useless.

Prove scientifically that Christ rose from dead , you can't .
All experiments will show that people don't rise from the dead .

If one believes Christ rise from the dead why can't believe the old tree or that donkey talked ?

 

[joshua 1 9]

By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?)

The Bible is a book of written History. Bishops Usshers book is a book of recorded history that begins 6,000 years ago. Ussher does not talk about anything that happens before Adam and Eve. He know nothing about what was here before Adam and Eve. So he had nothing to say about that.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

There are over 76,000 species of animals, reptiles and amphibians on land. They could not fit in one ark, much less survive in it for 40 days and nights. There are close to a million species of insects. Many of these could not survive global flooding. It took millions of years for life to become established across the globe. Not like these creatures could tread water for 40 days and nights. The story of Noah is not scientific.

Bible focuses on kinds, not species. Assuming a kind is equivalent to what we know as a genus today, you would only need one pair of a kind of each animal that needed to be on the Ark. From this, it is speculated that about 16,000 animals were needed.
See: How did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark? and How Could Noah Get All the Animals on the Ark?

Your second issue assumes variation requires long periods of time (millions of years) to work. Thus, of course, you will have a disagreement with Young Earth Creation.

In fact the Bible was written by human hands and not entirely by the hand of God. Some verses are good and other verses are not. God cannot be reduced to a few hundred pages in a book written eons ago. God is alive. Science can not measure God. The results of God's work may be seen, without seeing God's footprints, for God is spirit.

1 Timothy 1:4 "neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith--"

So what do we believe? Where does our picking and choosing end? Why should we believe we have Salvation? Whose to say that's not just something written by human hands, a myth, a fable, a fabrication, a cultural boo-boo, if you will? This, of course, assumes you are Christian. If you are then why believe the Ressurection? It's not scientific? Yet, it's fundamental to Christian faith.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Prove scientifically that Christ rose from dead , you can't. All experiments will show that people don't rise from the dead .

What is dead, at what point in time can you say someone is dead? Science has a funny way to lose things that does not line up with what they believe. They want things to look nice and neat and tidy and they are willing to adjust the evidence so everything lines up the way they want it to.

 

[dqhall]

Prove scientifically that Christ rose from dead , you can't .
All experiments will show that people don't rise from the dead .

If one believes Christ rise from the dead why can't believe the old tree or that donkey talked ?

I recall a report of a man who was showing no heart activity for 45 minutes while on a heart monitor and was considered dead. His son arrived in the hospital room and he came back to life:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ohio-man-declared-dead-back-life/story?id=20027401

 

[Chinchilla]

What is dead, at what point in time can you say someone is dead? Science has a funny way to lose things that does not line up with what they believe. They want things to look nice and neat and tidy and they are willing to adjust the evidence so everything lines up the way they want it to.

Dunno , some say the brain death is permament death but some people who looked like they had thier brain dead suddenly woke up from coma so you never know .

 

[Chinchilla]

I recall a report of a man who was showing no heart activity for 45 minutes while on a heart monitor and was considered dead. His son arrived in the hospital room and he came back to life:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ohio-man-declared-dead-back-life/story?id=20027401

You can feeze some animals and they come back to life after ice melts . Life is strange

 

[majj27]

Prove scientifically that Christ rose from dead , you can't .
All experiments will show that people don't rise from the dead .

If one believes Christ rise from the dead why can't believe the old tree or that donkey talked ?

Not the point. I don't have to prove Jesus rose from the dead. I wouldn't try. But if you're going to claim that the universe began in 4004 BC, and every single piece of evidence says otherwise, you need more to bolster your case than "Because otherwise my interpretation of the Bible doesn't work."

(And that doesn't even touch the simple fact that The Omphalos Conjecture is functionally identical to Last Thursdayism. Likewise, thanks to embedded memories, you can't actually prove that you ever read the bible in the first place. You may only THINK you have.)

 

[DavidPT]

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?

"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."





Link
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5138621

I try and stay away from topics such as this since this is not a topic that interests me, thus have never spent time researching any of these things. Regardless of that, a cpl of things come to mind.


When God initially populated the earth with trees, how do you reckon He did that? Do you feel He perhaps populated the earth with full grown trees from the get go? If you perhaps do, let's pretend one shows up from the future a day or two later after He does this, but they don't know that it is only a day or two later. Suppose some of these trees were then cut down by the one from the future once they show up. Would the rings reveal that the trees were only a day or two old, or would they reveal that the trees appear to be much older?

In order to try and answer that, let's consider Adam and Eve when He created them. Did He initially create them as infants who just came out of the womb, or did He create them as full sized adults? If the latter, where I assume most agree, suppose one shows up from the future a day or so after they had been created, except they don't know they were just created. How old would they guess they might be? The age of an infant who was just born a day or two earlier? Or the age of an adult who may have been born years earlier? Food for thought.

 

[Chinchilla]

Not the point. I don't have to prove Jesus rose from the dead. I wouldn't try. But if you're going to claim that the universe began in 4004 BC, and every single piece of evidence says otherwise, you need more to bolster your case than "Because otherwise my interpretation of the Bible doesn't work."

You assume things like entropy to be linear , speed of light to be linear and radiation to be linear , what if you have false assumptions ? We simply don't know .

By the genealogy in Bible we know the time untill the flood .
If the 7 days were billions of years keeping the Sabbath does not make sense because we don't live billions of years on earth but in days it makes perfect sense .

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are over 76,000 species of animals, reptiles and amphibians on land. They could not fit in one ark, much less survive in it for 40 days and nights.

Noah only had to save one bio-diverse Eco system. The Garden of Eden was very important because this was the beginning of farming and civilization. We know what was on the ARK because we read about all the various plants and animals in our Bible. Also the science of Botany & Ancient plants in the middle east tells us what was on Noah's ark. There were many many many beginnings with Adam and Eve. If it had not been for Noah and His Ark much if not all of that would have been lost.

When God sends forth His word, He accomplishes what HE intended to do. Isa 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Also the story of Noah's ark teaches us about other events. Pangaea for example. Jesus talks about: "as it was in the days of Noah". To teach a lesson about what will take place at the end of this age. Noah's story was on the second day. IF you look at the second day of Creation you see where God seperated the water above from the water below. With Noah we read about "fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven". On the second day God did a work with the waters above and the waters below.

Genesis 1 " 6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, toseparate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.…"