"Evolution isn't science"

but trees produce 1 ring per year.
Click to expand...
you are either lying or wrong...sorry
Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.
Weird but according to the Bible thats about when the flood was
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
you are either lying or wrong...sorry
Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.
Weird but according to the Bible thats about when the flood was
Click to expand...

Okay, point out where I'm "either lying or wrong" and limit discussion to bristlecone pines. I know some trees will produce more than one per year, but bristlecones are pretty faithful, they live a long time, and Methuselah is a specimen of such.
 
Several versions of it. I wait for your quoting of scripture that gives the Earth's age...
Click to expand...
There is no verse because it would have to be changed every year but if you add up all the ages of the people that it lists you will get about 4,000 years before Christ was born.
 
Okay, point out where I'm "either lying or wrong" and limit discussion to bristlecone pines. I know some trees will produce more than one per year, but bristlecones are pretty faithful, they live a long time, and Methuselah is a specimen of such
Click to expand...
Ok you admit not all trees produce one ring per year, I didn't get that from your original statement. If this is the oldest living tree is it just by chance that it happens to be about the same age of the flood. Why no older trees than when the flood happened...maybe they all died
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok you admit not all trees produce one ring per year, I didn't get that from your original statement. If this is the oldest living tree is it just by chance that it happens to be about the same age of the flood. Why no older trees than when the flood happened...maybe they all died
Click to expand...

So basically you're being exceedingly pedantic in order to avoid the original point. We can, and have, used cross dating to find tree rings dating back 8,000 years. This means that some of those trees had to have lived both before and after Methuselah's birth. Hence your coincidence is just that... a coincidence.

As I said before... the 14C criticism you linked is broken for obvious reasons. We have 8,000 years of data with which to calibrate.

Here's some good watching for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q

The video states there are 11,300 years in the total consensus of tree rings. I am not aware that we've used all of those for 14C calibration, but I would think 8,000 years of consistent readings, that I am aware of, to mean the work would mostly be a time and material wasting exercise.
 
Hey J_F, when you get a chance, dig out a bible and check out Genesis chapters one and two.

From the KJV:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Click to expand...
So here we are at the end of the sixth day, man and woman are created and instructed to reproduce.

Later...
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Gen 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.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Click to expand...

One account has God making man and woman on the sixth day, the other account has God making Adam sometime after the seventh day, and then after Adam names all the living things Eve is made from his rib.

How do you reconcile these two accounts?
 
jesus_freak said:
Second maybe my point isn't clear enough...I do believe in evolution to the point of for example a horse to a donkey...not from a horse to say a rabbit...I know it's an extreme but the fruit flies always produced fruit flies and finches always produce finches.
Click to expand...
The evidence for evolution is strong, but with the torrent of information that is being produced in the field of molecular genetics, the evidence is going to be increasingly stronger. It seems kind of pathetic for you to talk as if macroevolution is in some kind of dispute. It would make more sense for you to try to read some basic information on evolution so you know why scientists are so convinced. (Your failure to understand a subject does not count as an argument against it.) Creationists sometimes say that there are gaps in the fossil record. But DNA itself is a record; it has many traces showing the relationships and history of the species. The more DNA is analyzed, the clearer the relationships will be. (For your information, the evidence is getting stronger, not weaker as some creationists claim.)
 
You hang in there Jesus_Freak.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.

We need believing people.

.
 
I think that it is very well documented on how inaccurate cabon dating is but if not here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm and yes I am well aware that it is a Christian site but I think it makes my point.
Click to expand...
Carbon dating is almost never used as a dating method in paleontology because the maximum age it can provide is about 50,000 years, which is far too young for the vast majority of specimens. It is however used very often in archaeology, so is great evidence that civilization predates 10,000 years.
Most dates are arrived at with Potassium/Argon and Uranium/Lead. While the dating ranges are different the processes are the same, radioactive decay. Most errors can be attributed to methodological error. Just the same that a DNA sample can be inaccurate if it is collected or there is a mistake at some point in the process.
 
Belz... said:
Hey, what are YOU doing out of Forum Community, Mortis ? Get back to your place! ;) ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, Dread Lord, I was given a 3 day pass. I figured this was as good as any to take a furlough.

Don't worry, soon enough I'll be back in the comedy mines.
 
jesus_freak said:
First sorry I did mean I think the age of the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old...probably closer to 6000.
Click to expand...

Again, what about the civilisations that are OLDER than this ?

Second maybe my point isn't clear enough...I do believe in evolution to the point of for example a horse to a donkey...not from a horse to say a rabbit
Click to expand...

What's good for one is good for the other.

...I know it's an extreme but the fruit flies always produced fruit flies and finches always produce finches.
Click to expand...

And you explain chihuahuas from wolves how ?

I think that it is very well documented on how inaccurate cabon dating is
Click to expand...

Not it's not. It's actually very accurate within a certain age range. Outside this range you use OTHER radiactive isotopes.

Obviously I do not agree with your statement of 6000 year old or older civilizations, but can you give me some examples?
Click to expand...

Egypt, for one. Asia. American Indians. And if these people were already as different from one another, physiologically, as they are now, you'd also have to explain how that happened in so short a time.

Alot of assumptions here like the earth was like it is now before the flood
Click to expand...

It's a safe assumption, unless you have evidence to prove otherwise.

...I think the earth was mostly flat and all the water softend the earth and caused the shifting of the plates...
Click to expand...

Interesting. You seem to be trying to fit reality into your beliefs, rather than mold your beliefs from reality.

6 inches of water per minute will more than just "soften" the earth. It'll destroy every form of plant life in existence. Graze that, ark-survivors.

Im not sure of the exact number but I think if the earth was flat now there is enough water to cover it 12,000 feet deep, so the water is still here.
Click to expand...

Again, where did it GO ? If it's still there then only the highest mountains should be dry.

Oh and also it clearly says that the water not only came from above but below the earths surface as well, so no crushing accured...It's like God knew what he was doing or something huh?
Click to expand...

Actually it sounds like he didn't, because he screwed up so badly the first time around that he had to scrap everything and start all over again. Some omniscience.
 
jesus_freak said:
If this is the oldest living tree is it just by chance that it happens to be about the same age of the flood.
Click to expand...

"About" ? How does that prove anything ?

Why no older trees than when the flood happened...maybe they all died
Click to expand...

You engage in interesting circular reasoning. Do you have actual proof, or is the Bibble your one and only source ? Because one source without corroboration, outside of speculation, is no source at all, especially when it contradicts the laws of physics and logic.

ok so then the earth is about 8,000 years old I can buy that
Click to expand...

So those 8000 year-old trees survived the flood, now ? I thought you said they should've all died.
 
Belz... said:
And you explain chihuahuas from wolves how ?
Click to expand...

To be fair, Belz..., this isn't an example of speciezation, iddit? I mean, they're both Canis Lupus. In theory, the chihuahua could impregnate the wolf...(hrm...I wonder if MdC would pay money to watch that.) Your point is, at least on me, not lost.

The differing breeds of dogs are an excellent example of forced evolution. It's not a good example, however, of what the creationists call "macroevolution" as you still end up with a wolf...granted a very small, bug-eyed, yippy, short-haired, brown wolf, but a wolf nonetheless.

In the process of writing this, I've been trying to think of a good example of "macroevolution", but none come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
6 inches of water per minute will more than just "soften" the earth. It'll destroy every form of plant life in existence. Graze that, ark-survivors.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the energy released from all that rain wouldn't do Noah any favors either. Air isn't frictionless, nor is rain.

Plus, that's a lot of energy take out of the atmosphere. I guess it all came from the Super-Sargasso_SeaWP, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom