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.

 

How can the earth be millions of yrs old and we can't find a tree over 10K yrs old?

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Quasar_La-Zar
 


Always respect for you too!

OT





posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Well,... at least what I can say is that there must have been trees before this 10000 year old tree started to grow.
After all, they became oil and carbon,.. our main energy sources !!!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by noahproductions
Well,... at least what I can say is that there must have been trees before this 10000 year old tree started to grow.
After all, they became oil and carbon,.. our main energy sources !!!


That oil came from the rotting of organic materal is open to question.

For the only living tree to be over 10,000 yrs old, where did the seed come for to grow that tree.

Unless you think everything was started by God in 7 days. Just perhaps, those seven days could have been 100 years ago. Things aren't the way they seem.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by noahproductions
 


First of all that oil theory is over 200 years old and has yet to be proven for obvious reasons. As far as we know oil could be the earths blood and constantly produces on it's own.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


This thread just keeps going and going doesn't it? I've noticed however, you have not answered a pretty important question: Do you understand that the same science used to date this tree, is the same science used for determining the age of certain fossils? These certain fossils dating back to the dinosaur's...etc.

I can't help but agree with some of the posts here, in accusing you of being a troll. The fact is friend, you can't have both. You either believe in carbon dating or you don't. If you truly believe this tree is 10,000 years old, determined by scientific testing, then your simply going to have open your mind a little.

Please, no offense intended to you or your beliefs, but me and others on here do pose a pretty simple question.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sonia74
 


The way they date dino bones is by the layer of rock it's under. Carbon dating is only affective of upto 3000 years, beyond that carbon dating is worthless.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I just want to throw this out there,
whilst the earth may be billions of years old proven by radiometric dating (i'm still not totally convinced on accuracy)

there are a myriad of flaws in the carbon dating method. type in carbon dating flaws in Google and you can read about it yourself

or click here Flaws in Carbon Dating



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Do you really think the Earth is only 10k years old?


Living things will live. They then die. How come we can't find any animals over 10k years old? Hopefully you can answer that.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
i am detecting erratic thought patterns consistant with alcohol.

I can imagine their thoughts quite accuratly and know that they are suffering and will suffer even greater things at the hands of a public disgusted by the underhanded tactics of religious theology in scientific debate. At the end of the day they may no longer feel the threat of punishment from a now evaoprated god... so its ok to be dishonest.

but hear this! There are some who i would FORCE to live and that is a threat that technology will make good on.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I also want to point out that Genesis never says the Earth was created in a week.
It does say that God separated each creation time period (the earth, the sea, the sky, man)
by the word "day".
a "day" In Hebrew can also mean a non distinct period of time.
So God created the Earth in a 'non distinct period of time'.
Which could be millions of years.


Take this sentence for example:
"There was a day when people lived in huts." That doesn't mean people lived in huts for only 1 day.
could have been over a period of hundreds of thousands of years.

When you read the bible you have to be aware that it was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and some words are difficult to translate to English.

edit on 24-11-2010 by freedish because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2010 by freedish because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2010 by freedish because: cause i can



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Here's a great website with neat pictures of these old trees...I don't know how to put them into ATS...if someone does if you could help put a few "in" this thread I would appreciate it.


Hi OldThinker, because I had some spare time and you did need some help and because of my respect for such really marvelous old trees I did it with pleasure.




Methuselah
The world’s oldest individual tree lives 10,000 feet above sea level in the Inyo National Forest, California. A staggering 4,765 years old, this primeval tree was already a century old when the first pyramid was built in Egypt. The tree is hidden among other millennia-old Great Basin bristlecone pines in a grove called the Forest of Ancients. To protect the tree from vandalism, the forest service keeps its exact location secret, but this one looks like it could be Methuselah.





Zoroastrian Sarv (Sarv-e-Abarkooh)
This giant cypress lives in Abarkooh, Iran. The evergreen took root between 4,000 and 4,500 years ago, around the time that Stonehenge was being completed. It may be the oldest living thing in Asia, and is a national monument in Iran. The Zorastrian Sarv stands about 82 feet high and has a girth of 37.8 feet.





Llangernyw Yew
This common yew in Llangernyw, Wales, sprouted during Britain’s Bronze Age, and is between 3,000 and 4,000 years old. Yew trees can live so long because new shoots from the trunk fuse with it. When the main trunk dies, these offshoots keep going. Branches can also take root in the rotting trunk, or reach down into the soil near the base.





Alerce Tree
The majestic evergreen tree was discovered in 1993 in a grove in the Andes Mountains of south-central Chile. Using tree rings, scientists showed the giant is 3,620 years old. Though these Patagonian cypresses can reach 150 feet tall, they gain only a millimeter in girth each year, and can take a thousand years to be full-grown. The Zoroastrian Sarv and the Llangernyw yew are thought to be older, but the Alerce is the second oldest tree to have its exact age calculated.





The Senator
This giant bald cypress lives in the semi-tropical Big Tree Park, Florida, among palm trees. The Senator is the biggest tree by volume east of the Mississippi River. The 125-foot-tall behemoth is about 3,500 years old. The cypress germinated around the same time as the Polynesians first settled Fiji.





Jōmon Sugi
This cryptomeria tree’s 83-foot height and 53-foot girth makes it the largest conifer in Japan. The tree grows in a misty, old-growth forest on the north face of the tallest mountain on Yakushima island in Japan. Tree rings indicate the venerable cryptomeria is at least 2,000 years old, though some estimate it could be as old as 7,000 years.





General Sherman
This towering giant sequoia stretches 275 feet, about as tall as a 27-story high-rise building, and is 102.6 feet around. That makes it the largest (by volume) individual tree in the world. The general lives in the Sequoia National Park in California. Scientists believe this tree could be anywhere from 2,300 years old to 2,700 years old.





Te Matua Ngahere
This majestic Kauri tree is nestled in the last stretch of a primeval rainforest in Waipoua Forest, New Zealand. The tree is thought to be around 2,000 years old. With a 52.5-foot girth, Te Matua Ngahere is the fattest tree in New Zealand. The giant, whose name means “Father of the Forest” in Maori, was severely damaged in a storm in 2007.





Jardine Juniper
This juniper tree lives in the Cache National Forest in Utah. It was originally thought to be around 3,200 years old, but core samples downgraded it to a mere 1,500 years old. It’s around 40 feet tall and 24 feet around.





Kongeegen
This gnarled, ancient oak tree is set away in the Jægerspris North Forest in Denmark. Scientists estimate the “King Oak” is between 1,500 to 2,000 years old, making it a contender for the title of oldest individual tree in Northern Europe. Though it germinated in an open meadow, the trees growing around it are slowly closing in on the old oak and killing it.





Old Tjikko
This ancient, 16-foot tall Norway spruce lives in the scrubby Fulufjället Mountains in Sweden. At 9,550 years, Old Tjikko is the oldest single-stemmed clonal tree, and took root not long after the glaciers receded from Scandinavia after the last ice age. To figure out the hardy spruce’s age, scientists carbon-dated its roots. For thousands of years, the forbidding tundra-climate kept Old Tjikko in shrub form. But as weather warmed over the last century, the shrub has grown into a full-fledged tree. The spruce’s discoverer, geologist Leif Kullman, named the tree after his dead dog.


www.wired.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


why stop at trees , look at bacteria and their genes , they have been around for millenia !



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Nope, there must have been something other then trees for bacteria, dino's, and humans to exist with. Maybe some aliens artificially put oxygen in our atmosphere until our trees could be installed 10K years ago?!?!?!?! They were running behind and didn't meet they're contract deadline, welp, I guess those aliens aren't getting paid bonuses.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by etcorngods
 


"That oil came from the rotting of organic materal is open to question."

I'm sorry. I just can't help myself.

If oil came from rotting organic material, how many dinosaurs have lived and died on Titan, one of the moons of Saturn?
It has been determined that many of the same hydrocarbons which make up oil are present on Titan. It has been "speculated" that it may even rain a mixture very similar to oil there.
I am not trying to promote one idea over another, I just think this should be pointed out from time to time.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xBWOMPx
 





The way they date dino bones is by the layer of rock it's under. Carbon dating is only affective of upto 3000 years, beyond that carbon dating is worthless.


Wiki:



Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1

Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonia74
reply to post by OldThinker
 


This thread just keeps going and going doesn't it? I've noticed however, you have not answered a pretty important question: Do you understand that the same science used to date this tree, is the same science used for determining the age of certain fossils? These certain fossils dating back to the dinosaur's...etc.

I can't help but agree with some of the posts here, in accusing you of being a troll. The fact is friend, you can't have both. You either believe in carbon dating or you don't. If you truly believe this tree is 10,000 years old, determined by scientific testing, then your simply going to have open your mind a little.

Please, no offense intended to you or your beliefs, but me and others on here do pose a pretty simple question.


None taken...I'm not avoiding anything...the verdict is still out...contaminants do their thing...and the reliability after, I'll give it 10K is suspect...

Remember this post earlier? pls focus on the BOLD, ok? No troll, intimidating maybe

Possible contaminating agents are many and varied, as described above. Unless there are specific conditions which warrant specialized pretreatment, most laboratories process samples with acid and alkali washes. While this standard pretreatment is usually effective in removing modern contaminants, it may not do so for intrusive materials deposited much earlier. The well-known controversy over the earliest date (pre-10,000 B.C.) from Meadowcroft rockshelter in Pennsylvania hinges on an alleged gradual contamination of the charcoal samples through the injection of dead carbon in the form of coal particles or of organic solubles (Haynes 1980; Dincauze 1981), in spite of the fact that the cave is dry and its earliest cultural layer is well sealed. One of the proponents of contamination, C. Vance Haynes, was a pioneer of chemical pretreatment methods to remove plant debris from C-14 samples. He points out that the dated samples from Meadowcroft are not pure charcoal but "mixtures of finely divided carbon and carbonaceous matter with... a significant percentage of soluble organic matter" (1980:583). Humate extractions were dated some 10,000 years earlier than the residual material in one sample. Cook (1964) investigated apparent charcoal samples from archaeological sites using chemical procedures similar to but stronger than those of C-14 pretreatment, and concluded that many were decayed wood with "considerable amounts of organic matter produced by micro-organisms through past centuries." Others were partially burned (carmelized) wood with considerable infiltration of organic matter.

Another famous early man site in North America, the Old Crow site in the Yukon territory of Canada, also yielded very misleading C-14 results according to a recent study by Nelson (1986). Bone tools from the site had given a date of around 27,000 years B.P. These tools were made of caribou ribs, and Nelson found that the outer portions of the bone had exchanged carbon with the air and ground water. A sample taken from the innermost portion of the bone yielded an age of 1,350 years. As in the Meadowcraft samples, the dating of progressive fractions revealed discrepancies not apparent when the samples were subjected to traditional pretreatment and dated.

My own investigation of a "charcoal" sample dated 8500 BP from a geological context in Hong Kong led to uncertainties inherent in the dates on wood samples from certain depositional environments. The wood was taken from a marine clay 18m. Below sea level; it was jet black as if charred. Laboratory examination (Grisack 1985) revealed however that the cellulose structure did not exhibit the morphological changes associated with charring. Scanning electron microscope study revealed that the pore spaces of the cellulose were almost completely filled. The analytical spectrometer showed the main inorganic substances present were sulfur and iron, with lesser amounts of silicon, aluminium, calcium and sodium. Treatment with 50% hydrochloric acid was effective in removing inorganic materials, but under the SEM the pore spaces remained as occluded with debris as before. The sample also showed very little birefringence under polarized light, whereas wood fibers should be brightly birefringent. "The explanation that suggests itself is that some organic type material has slowly, over a long period of time, been filtering into the lumens of the wood and possibly the cell walls as well, displacing the cellulose or carbon" (Grisack 1985:3). In the opinion of F.H. Kendall, Director of the: Radioisotope Unit at the University of Hong Kong, standard C-14 pretreatment of wood and charcoal samples would not succeed in removing organic material translocated into the lumens and cell walls of the cellulose (personal communication 1985).

It is clear that "more research on dating technology needs to be conducted so that the reliability of dates can be assessed" (Stanford 1982:205). MacDonald(1983:100, 108) believes that the absorption of humates from ground water may have seriously contaminated many dates from the northeastern US with its particularly acidic soils:

"The critical question that demands immediate attention is that of humic acid contamination of C-14 dates, since there is growing evidence that current lab pretreatments are inadequate and that we are confounded by dates that may in some cases be too old and in other cases too young ..."

In sum, it should be obvious to the non-specialist, as it is to most archaeologists and radiocarbon scientists, that possible contamination always represents an element of uncertainty which no amount of laboratory pretreatment or measurement can totally efface. Clusters of congruent dates on different materials, replicated at different sites, eventually allow for a reliable radio-carbon chronology to be established, but there is, quite simply, no possibility of an absolute date on a single sample or artifact." ( from www.shroud.com... by William Meacham )





posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Uhhhhhmmm, please do some sort of minimal research before you post. Petrified trees abound around the earth with ancient beginnings. Surely you can't be asking why none are alive?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
That may be the worlds oldest LIVING tree but it is NOT the worlds oldest tree.

Ever heard of the petrified forest?

en.wikipedia.org...

They have petrified wood that date back millions of years.

What of plant fossils? huh? Ferns and such? Or even animal fossils that date back millions of years?

Come on, with all do respect, your idea is only half baked...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
reply to post by sonia74
 


The way they date dino bones is by the layer of rock it's under. Carbon dating is only affective of upto 3000 years, beyond that carbon dating is worthless.


I always thought people from Kansas were smarter than the rest of us!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedish

there are a myriad of flaws in the carbon dating method. type in carbon dating flaws in Google and you can read about it yourself

or click here Flaws in Carbon Dating


Not when you teacher in HS teaches you it is TRUE...and then follow-up by the "scientist" professor in college. So many times people hang on to something also because of familiarity...my OP is trying to get them to think differently, becuase that's where wisdom resides.

So glad you added to the thread and pointed out the website...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join