It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionists, where are all the bodies?

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: np6888

Unfortunately, linking is not so easy. Most of the info and articles are on databases like JSTOR. However, there is Old Tjikko which is currently the world's oldest living tree at 9550 years old (over 19,000 tree rings!)


Old Tjikko and Pando are clonal trees and weren't dated using dendrochronology. Though that doesn't mean that they don't disprove the great flood account (they do, even as just root systems they wouldn't be able to survive for 40 days submerged with the amount of water that the great flood account speaks of).

List of oldest trees. As you can see, no living individual tree discounts the Great Flood account. You have to look at the clonal trees and clonal colonies to do that, but those aren't dated using dendrochronology.




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

To piggyback off of that more than 99% of all species on the planet are extinct. So with that being the case, if evolution isn't true, that would mean that the deeper we dig into the ground, the more fossils we should uncover as well as the diversity of the fossils should increase as well. Yet this isn't the case either.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It must be the work of the DEVIL!



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

According to wiki, the trunk of that tree is only 600 years old, only the roots have been carbon-dated to be 9000 years old, so the tree rings part was clearly made up.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Man that devil sure is a tricksey character. Seems like he's thought of everything to fool the masses. With all this deception, how can you trust anything? It sure would be nice if the forces of god would get off their lazy asses and provide some direction for their flock so more people aren't led astray. Oh wait I'm sorry, we are just supposed to "trust in god" or "it's all part of god's plan". Well god's plan seems to benefit the morally bankrupt while destroying all hope for the just. The sinners don't pay and there is no visible vindication of the just's beliefs while alive.

Or just MAYBE it's all hogwash. Wait that doesn't make sense, time to go back and do some more mental gymnastics to make this god character work.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

According to wiki, the trunk of that tree is only 600 years old, only the roots have been carbon-dated to be 9000 years old, so the tree rings part was clearly made up.



go back I posted the actual article but and here it is again

Link redux



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Hanslune

Man that devil sure is a tricksey character. Seems like he's thought of everything to fool the masses. With all this deception, how can you trust anything? It sure would be nice if the forces of god would get off their lazy asses and provide some direction for their flock so more people aren't led astray. Oh wait I'm sorry, we are just supposed to "trust in god" or "it's all part of god's plan". Well god's plan seems to benefit the morally bankrupt while destroying all hope for the just. The sinners don't pay and there is no visible vindication of the just's beliefs while alive.

Or just MAYBE it's all hogwash. Wait that doesn't make sense, time to go back and do some more mental gymnastics to make this god character work.


Well yeah; the Devil is particularly clever dude, so clever the all powerful God didn't foresee him and cannot get rid of him, chuckle.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

According to wiki, the trunk of that tree is only 600 years old, only the roots have been carbon-dated to be 9000 years old, so the tree rings part was clearly made up.

Either way...it's not about the age of the tree, it's the length of the uninterrupted sequence! Size matters, eh?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To assume that the root system can't survive the flood for 40 days if the trunks can't is another slippery slope.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To assume that the root system can't survive the flood for 40 days if the trunks can't is another slippery slope.




Genesis 7:17
And the flood was forty days upon the earth.

Genesis 7:24
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

so either 150 days or 190 of salt water

....haven't you read the bible?

Oh shall we talk about how soil - full of organic material dissolves in salt water - also what type of terrain was this tree, would the soil survive 40 of heavy rain fall?
edit on 16/9/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To assume that the root system can't survive the flood for 40 days if the trunks can't is another slippery slope.



Why is that? Care to explain how a root system is supposed to get nutrients, O2, CO2, and light while under a mountain of water? Oh yeah, how is it also supposed to survive the IMMENSE pressure of being buried under that much water? Actually you can TEST yourself if it is possible for a root system to survive under water. Go get a tree, chop it down to a stump (or its roots), then submerge it for 40 days under a bunch of water and see if it survives. Then come back and report your findings. You could do this experiment with a quick trip to Homo Depot.

Like I said, you don't know what a slippery slope is.


In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.


So how about explaining why a root system not being able to survive under all that water is a slippery slope and why micro evolution leading to macro evolution is a slippery slope given the definition above?
edit on 16-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
This topic has entered the inevitable vortex.
Why do people that use scientific evidence to form their beliefs continually get sucked into debates with people who believe in magic?
Eject



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
This topic has entered the inevitable vortex.
Why do people that use scientific evidence to form their beliefs continually get sucked into debates with people who believe in magic?
Eject


Its kinda fun like watching clouds and seeing shapes, harmless entertainment.

In the long run it has absolutely no effect on the real world or the methodology of science.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not this again. Roots don't need CO2 or light to live, WE don't need light to live. A root only needs oxygen to live, which it can get from the water.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Oh, you big silly! Bringing your logic, empirical evidence, rational thought and common sense to a thread like this..

Tsk tsk.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not this again. Roots don't need CO2 or light to live, WE don't need light to live. A root only needs oxygen to live, which it can get from the water.



Sure we need light to get vitamin D

Where do the roots get nitrates and mineral salts from?

Have you conceded the 11,000 year old tree ring question - you have run from it it would seem?

Also have you acknowledged your error in thinking the flood lasted only 40 days?
edit on 16/9/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: itsallgonenow
Even the most "primitive" communities are recorded burying their dead, often times with stone markers and artifacts. Not just rulers, but even common people would typically have some of their stone implements they used in life tossed into their grave... implements that would be preserved for a very long time and not decay... If you assume the Evolutionary timeline, then humans have been burying their dead since "Paleolithic" times, over 100,000 years ago... We are talking many billions of people living and dying and burying their dead over all that time... We should be tripping over their burial sites everywhere we step. Graves should be littering the earth... But there are few remains to be found.... which is instead what we would expect if people had only been around for a few thousand years as the Bible indicates... just as we would expect roughly the current world human population levels if we started with only 8 people stepping off the Ark 4,500 years ago.



Where are all of the bodies?


But what about the dinosaurs?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not this again. Roots don't need CO2 or light to live, WE don't need light to live. A root only needs oxygen to live, which it can get from the water.



The lengths you'll go to to justify your position are just mind boggling.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I don't see where it says 11,000 tree rings on wiki. If you think your source is good enough, then make an edit on wiki and see if it remains. And you can get vitamin D from other sources, that's why you see the Chinese living underground, without problems. Even if you get problems long term, it's certainly not going to be significant in a do-or-die situation, especially for organisms that can survive over thousand of years.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Hanslune

I don't see where it says 11,000 tree rings on wiki. If you think your source is good enough, then make an edit on wiki and see if it remains. And you can get vitamin D from other sources, that's why you see the Chinese living underground, without problems. Even if you get problems long term, it's certainly not going to be significant in a do-or-die situation, especially for organisms that can survive over thousand of years.



Honestly, at this point, why are you trying to use any sort of science to back up your claims about the flood?

Just say "god saved the trees" and move on. An all-powerful deity doesn't need logical explanations for anything that happens.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join