| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2004 11:06:03 AM |
| Object: |
Tree Rings and Earth Age |
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. The
oldest trees are the Sequoia gigantea and the Bristlecone pines of the
White Mountains in California. The Redwoods are found to be between
2000-3000 years old with no predecessors(as if they simply appeared all at
once).
The Bristlecone pines are the oldest living things on this earth. They
have been dated to be 4000+years old. They also appear out of nowhere at
this age. Both of these trees apparently have had time for only one
generation to develop.
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago. Once again the
evolutionary religionists have been "barking up the wrong tree"-I know, I
know-but I just could not resist it!!
.
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
15 Jan 2004 11:13:04 AM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1501040906030001@pm4-20.kalama.com...
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. The
oldest trees are the Sequoia gigantea and the Bristlecone pines of the
White Mountains in California. The Redwoods are found to be between
2000-3000 years old with no predecessors(as if they simply appeared all at
once).
The Bristlecone pines are the oldest living things on this earth. They
have been dated to be 4000+years old. They also appear out of nowhere at
this age. Both of these trees apparently have had time for only one
generation to develop.
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago. Once again the
evolutionary religionists have been "barking up the wrong tree"-I know, I
know-but I just could not resist it!!
Tom: Yes you idiot, a good device to determine the age of a tree is by its
rings. Did you learn about that in creationist school? A good method to
determine the age of the earth is radiometric dating. Do you understand the
difference?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
15 Jan 2004 11:31:17 AM |
|
|
(IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
In article <2cjd00p1krai48d5vugj39pagp4btlm94g@4ax.com>, chris
<www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
_____________________________________________________
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest," TJ vol.
17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 04:47:17 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1601040916550001@pm8-04.kalama.com...
In article <2cjd00p1krai48d5vugj39pagp4btlm94g@4ax.com>, chris
<www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older
than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
_____________________________________________________
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Do you understand dendrochronology? We match rings of both living and dead
trees to allow us to reliably date back further than the lifespan of any
single tree.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest," TJ vol.
17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
You might want to have your creationist friend, John Woodmorappe, publish
his findings in a peer-reviewed periodical so that Duke, Rutgers, Indiana
and Cornell departments of dendrochronology (not to mention Wikipedia and
Britannica) can adjust their teaching accordingly. As of now, their
scientists and researchers agree that Bristlecone tree-rings stretch back
more than 8500 years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 11:29:20 AM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
chris <www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest," TJ vol.
17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
Thanks for the cite, but perhaps you are not aware that the author
of that 'study' is not a dendrochronologist, nor is 'TJ' a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.
However, that does not really matter. There are thousands of other
species of trees around the world and real dendrochronologists are
studying them. Many species have been similarly traced to be well
over 6000 years old.
This, of course, does not take into account specimens of fossilized
trees whose rings do not match any point in the sequence because they
are much older than that.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
17 Jan 2004 12:46:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:29:20 GMT, chris <www211@infionline.net> wrote:
Thanks for the cite, but perhaps you are not aware that the author
of that 'study' is not a dendrochronologist, nor is 'TJ' a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.
However, that does not really matter. There are thousands of other
species of trees around the world and real dendrochronologists are
studying them. Many species have been similarly traced to be well
over 6000 years old.
This, of course, does not take into account specimens of fossilized
trees whose rings do not match any point in the sequence because they
are much older than that.
Chris
What annoys me most about fundie automatons like "IKnowHimDoYou" (or
whatever he calls himself), is that they fancy themselves such mighty
(and "persecuted" too, of course) Christian believers for spouting
this pseudo-science and getting called on it by anyone with a pair of
eyes and a few brain cells.
All they do with their modern ersatz approximation of Christianity is
bring scorn, ridicule and disrepute on the faith; it's no wonder no
one listens when they try to spread the Gospel (at least as they
understand it) because they have already been shown as kooks, liars
and ignoramuses.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with science and religion
coexsisting in harmony; I always saw one as confirming the other.
BTW--what is this "TJ"?
I figure there is a reason he didn't post the actual name of the
publication, only an abbreviation.
St. Nick
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
17 Jan 2004 08:04:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:46:26 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
St. Nick <nomail@spambloat.com> wrote in
<gplh00tb9ce2e86fg230ebbvck1heumq68@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:29:20 GMT, chris <www211@infionline.net> wrote:
Thanks for the cite, but perhaps you are not aware that the author
of that 'study' is not a dendrochronologist, nor is 'TJ' a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.
However, that does not really matter. There are thousands of other
species of trees around the world and real dendrochronologists are
studying them. Many species have been similarly traced to be well
over 6000 years old.
This, of course, does not take into account specimens of fossilized
trees whose rings do not match any point in the sequence because they
are much older than that.
Chris
What annoys me most about fundie automatons like "IKnowHimDoYou" (or
whatever he calls himself), is that they fancy themselves such mighty
(and "persecuted" too, of course) Christian believers for spouting
this pseudo-science and getting called on it by anyone with a pair of
eyes and a few brain cells.
All they do with their modern ersatz approximation of Christianity is
bring scorn, ridicule and disrepute on the faith; it's no wonder no
one listens when they try to spread the Gospel (at least as they
understand it) because they have already been shown as kooks, liars
and ignoramuses.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with science and religion
coexsisting in harmony; I always saw one as confirming the other.
BTW--what is this "TJ"?
TJ is AIG's creationist imitation of a science journal. Subscription
information is at
<http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/4009401106f377d42719ccfd844c067a/Catalog/Magazines#TJ>
but many articles are posted on <http://www.answersingenesis.com>.
I figure there is a reason he didn't post the actual name of the
publication, only an abbreviation.
It was Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, but it appears to have
changed its name simply to TJ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
17 Jan 2004 08:30:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:04:43 -0600, David Jensen
<david@BYEdajensen-family.com> wrote:
BTW--what is this "TJ"?
TJ is AIG's creationist imitation of a science journal. Subscription
information is at
<snip>
I figured it was something like that.
Too bad fundiementalists havent figured out that the Scriptures are
not a science textbook, nor were they intended to be.
St. Nick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 04:59:44 PM |
|
|
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Assuming this to be true, which I doubt considering the multitude of
lies you babble, what is this supposed to prove?
Tell you what: The only thing this proves is that the trees in question
were no more than 4000 years old. It says NOTHING about the age of the
world.
Ah, wait, it _does_ say something about the world's age. It proves a
_minimum_ age of the world of 4000 years.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF (PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion", but
whenever followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts
agree, scream "Persecution!"
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 11:18:45 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
In article <2cjd00p1krai48d5vugj39pagp4btlm94g@4ax.com>, chris
<www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree
rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing,
being older than any reasonable date of the Great Flood at
4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The
first google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html is an easy
read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood
and 3000 years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
_____________________________________________________
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by
crossmatching rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of
age-staggering has occured showing that those trees considered
to be around 8000 years old are more accuratly found to be
around 4000 years old.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine
Forest," TJ vol. 17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
IK,
Well, of course, dendrochronology is done around the world, not
just in the US Southwest. Here's a link to one of the
very many pages on the science of dendrochronology:
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext.html
From that site:
begin quotation:
The bristlecone pine chronology of the American Southwest now
exceeds 8500 years with the possibility that up to 3000
floating years will be added in the reasonably near future.
The European oak and pine chronology, a composite of work done
in Germany and Northern Ireland, is now over 11,000 years
long.[3]
[3] See J. R. Pilcher, M. G. L. Baillie, B. Schmidt, and B.
Becker, "A 7,272- Year Tree-Ring Chronology for Western
Europe," Nature 312 (1984) 150- 52, and now B. Becker, "An
11,000-Year German Oak and Pine Dendrochronology for
Radiocarbon Calibration," Radiocarbon 35:1 (1993) 201-13. For
a recent archaeological application which typifies the uses of
the method see B. Schmidt, H. Köhren-Jansen, and K. Freckmann,
Kleine Hausgeschichte der Mosellandschaft (Köln 1990).
end quotation.
We can keep this up all day, IK. Can you--with science?
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 11:11:23 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-1601040916550001@pm8-04.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
In article <2cjd00p1krai48d5vugj39pagp4btlm94g@4ax.com>, chris
<www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
_____________________________________________________
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest," TJ vol.
17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
++++++++++++++++
But you don't have any respect do you?
Having nothing to offer in genuine opposition to the findings of science
you seek to deride that which doesn't appear palatable to your diet of
Biblical mythology misinterpreted by a cretinous non-intellect
Christianity truly does not have time to waste on idiots like you
Go away - you are the ruin of any Church!
++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nige" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 06:41:52 PM |
|
|
You. "IKnowHimDoYou" are embarrasing.
If i was your father i would be ashamed.
I have never seen such delusion warp current logic
to such an extent ever.
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1601040916550001@pm8-04.kalama.com...
In article <2cjd00p1krai48d5vugj39pagp4btlm94g@4ax.com>, chris
<www211@infionline.net> wrote:
IBlowHim@leavingsoon.com (IBlowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. ...
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older
than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Again, you show how little you know of dendrochronology. The first
google hit:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
is an easy read, and shows how the science has dated some bristlecones
to at least 9000 years ago, well before your supposed flood and 3000
years before they were "created" in Genesis.
Chris
_____________________________________________________
With all respect,the most recent study indicates that by crossmatching
rings with living Bristlecones comparisons of age-staggering has occured
showing that those trees considered to be around 8000 years old are more
accuratly found to be around 4000 years old.
Source: "Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest," TJ vol.
17(3) 2003, pp.119-127
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
15 Jan 2004 04:55:10 PM |
|
|
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
Not even my pet rats would call this a proof of anything. After all, by
the same reasoning they (if they could talk) could claim that the world
is not older than five years at most since they are both just a little
over two years old.
I-know-***** as we know him...
UNWRITTEN RULES OF (PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion", but
whenever followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts
agree, scream "Persecution!"
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
16 Jan 2004 11:07:53 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-1501040906030001@pm4-20.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. The
oldest trees are the Sequoia gigantea and the Bristlecone pines of the
White Mountains in California. The Redwoods are found to be between
2000-3000 years old with no predecessors(as if they simply appeared all at
once).
The Bristlecone pines are the oldest living things on this earth. They
have been dated to be 4000+years old. They also appear out of nowhere at
this age. Both of these trees apparently have had time for only one
generation to develop.
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago. Once again the
evolutionary religionists have been "barking up the wrong tree"-I know, I
know-but I just could not resist it!!
A couple of hundred meters below where I am now sitting is a coal deposit
that stretches from the Australian Coast out to sea in one direction and
mile after mile inland in the other. Australia, where I live, has some of
the worlds biggest coal deposits.
Much of them used to be trees!
Silly - silly boy
Oh and we also have fossilised forests!
I think some dog, rather than barking up the wrong tree, must have pissed
on your intellect
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
17 Jan 2004 10:19:38 PM |
|
|
"oz" <canterbury@england.com> wrote in message
news:canterbury-1701041607530001@ppp129.dyn27.pacific.net.au...
In article <IKnowHim-1501040906030001@pm4-20.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Tree Rings and Earth Age
A good chronometric device to determine age is to use tree rings. The
oldest trees are the Sequoia gigantea and the Bristlecone pines of the
White Mountains in California. The Redwoods are found to be between
2000-3000 years old with no predecessors(as if they simply appeared all
at
once).
The Bristlecone pines are the oldest living things on this earth. They
have been dated to be 4000+years old. They also appear out of nowhere
at
this age. Both of these trees apparently have had time for only one
generation to develop.
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older
than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago. Once again
the
evolutionary religionists have been "barking up the wrong tree"-I know,
I
know-but I just could not resist it!!
A couple of hundred meters below where I am now sitting is a coal deposit
that stretches from the Australian Coast out to sea in one direction and
mile after mile inland in the other. Australia, where I live, has some of
the worlds biggest coal deposits.
Much of them used to be trees!
Silly - silly boy
Oh and we also have fossilised forests!
I think some dog, rather than barking up the wrong tree, must have pissed
on your intellect
Not to mention the fossilised sand dunes at Lake Mungo NSW ( 10's of
thousands of years old ), the fossilised coral in WA ( 100's of millions of
years old ), Ayers Rock ( Ulhuru ), The Great Barrier Reef ( which CAN be
accurately dated as Coral also has growth rings )......the list here in Oz
is nearly endless....all go to show that this place is truly ancient...
--
MA yoiks....and away !
Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Anti-Spam : remove underscore to contact me
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Church" |
|
| Title: Re: Tree Rings and Earth Age |
15 Jan 2004 09:15:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:06:03 -0800,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
The Redwoods are found to be between
2000-3000 years old with no predecessors(as if they simply appeared all at
once).
Duh,,, Don't you know wood rots? It is biodegradable.
The Bristlecone pines They also appear out of nowhere at
this age.
Poof! and a 4,000 year old tree just pops up?
There is no record of a tree, or any other living thing, being older than
any reasonable date of the Great Flood at 4000 years ago.
And further more science has dated some bristle cones
to at least 9000 years ago.
.
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...
The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
michael@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
