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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro

Please refer to the article I posted on page one showing evidence of trees dating to 320 million years ago. Case closed.


Case closed?

How is that the "scientific method"?

Was it "obeserved?"

Have you thought how looooooooooong ago 320 M years is?


No the case isn't closed...certainly not in my mind and hopefully not in yours...

I'll agree to disagree...

Question for you? A logic question....

If a doctor examined Adam and Eve the day after they were born...and he/she didn't know the Genesis creatioon story....

How old?

What physical "evidence" would they use? Size? Appearance? Facial Hair? etc....

So...what would he say..scientifically?

"About 25, right? It appears that way."

But in reality how OLD were they...less than 24 hours.

"Man that a looong way off from 25 years....I wonder if my eyes/science fooled me?"




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Well now, it appears we truly have concluded the OP is trolling.
I have better things to do. Fun waste of time. See ya!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by kokoro

Please refer to the article I posted on page one showing evidence of trees dating to 320 million years ago. Case closed.


Case closed?

How is that the "scientific method"?

Was it "obeserved?"

Have you thought how looooooooooong ago 320 M years is?


No the case isn't closed...certainly not in my mind and hopefully not in yours...

I'll agree to disagree...

Question for you? A logic question....

If a doctor examined Adam and Eve the day after they were born...and he/she didn't know the Genesis creatioon story....

How old?

What physical "evidence" would they use? Size? Appearance? Facial Hair? etc....

So...what would he say..scientifically?

"About 25, right? It appears that way."

But in reality how OLD were they...less than 24 hours.

"Man that a looong way off from 25 years....I wonder if my eyes/science fooled me?"


Who the heck is Adam and Eve?! Never met em, they must not exist.
Less than 24 hours and they had a facial hair. You must agree that is crazy.
Was it this Eve character who had the facial hair?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud


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


We CAN find trees that are older than 10K yrs old.
Your title thread seems to be inacurate.

Many elepants in the room. Pleas acknowledge the elephant.


No....

there one old elephant typing with two old fat fingers on this end and about 40 of you on the other end...

So I'm not dodging you, the elephants, or anyone else


So here's my response...

Thank you for the evidence of very old dead trees...questionable as your "evidence" may be...but OT's no scientist...al tho I am an ASQ LSS MBB and it pays the bills
well most of them.


Now back to the OP...should I add the implied word "living"




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Now back to the OP...should I add the implied word "living"



Add the word "living" if you'd like. It's your thread.
Don't be so sad.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Well now, it appears we truly have concluded the OP is trolling.
I have better things to do. Fun waste of time. See ya!





You post like the instructor of the bad kids in KARATE KID....


If you can't see Mr Miagi's point your never will


"one-on-one, fair fight....six-on-one, not." in my best japanese dialect


Sorry if I didn't get to you quick enough....you have another chance.

btw, trolls hide....and this thread is already on google so who's hiding now



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
A 3000 year old flood doesn't disprove that the world is, in fact, millions of years old. There are leaves and twigs trapped in million year old amber that proves this. There are fossilized trees and animals as well.
The bible may be accurate in the telling of a great flood, but the truth of the matter is, the world is far older than this flood, and far older than men... and even Dinosaurs for that matter.
We are but a blip on the timeline of Earth's life.

But (and you knew this was coming), Scientists have also stated that in order for there to be enough water to cover the entire planet (which would be necessary to drown all trees, as you're suggesting), this water would have to go somewhere. It isn't in the ocean. Scientist claim that in order for there to be enough water on Earth to completely cover the land, and to be able to rain down for 40 days and nights over the entire globe, the air would be so humid that you would drown if you took a breath. Not to mention that 40 days still wouldn't be enough to cover mountains.

It is MORE LIKELY that an alien vessel carrying mutated DNA samples (able to exist on Earth) came down to deliver modern animals and humans, than it is that a massive amount of water materialized to drown the Earth out of the vengeance of a "Loving" God, and then all disappeared leaving a single family and a bunch of animals to walk off a boat that got stuck on the top of a mountain where the animals then had to leave this boat, swim across oceans to get home, and then this family would have to inbreed to create all of the races of the world. Which one sounds more plausible to you?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud


Who the heck is Adam and Eve?! Never met em, they must not exist.
Less than 24 hours and they had a facial hair. You must agree that is crazy.
Was it this Eve character who had the facial hair?


That was a bit over your head...think about it...you see it one day.

Stuble? The doctor lent her a "venus-blade" and she's good to go....

afterwards Adam thanked the doctor



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire
A 3000 year old flood doesn't disprove that the world is, in fact, millions of years old.


Yes, friend you are right



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
You post like the instructor of the bad kids in KARATE KID....

If you can't see Mr Miagi's point your never will


The instructor of the bad kids is Martin Cove played by John Kreese
and the bad kids are Cobra Kai.

Get your facts and info straight.

"Fear does not exist in this Dojo does it?" Students: "No Sensei!"
"Pain does not exist in this Dojo does it?" Students: "No Sensei!"
"Trees do not exist in this Dojo does it?" Students: "No Sensei!"



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Because we are time travelers and our world is as we see it we sent out into space our genetic info and we seed life as we kknow it throught the universe peering through as if in some crystal like view of the cosmos looking deep into our past and looking busy looking into our futurer self .....we need to overcome our shell and have life as ourselves more intune with nature but our bodies seem to bee but are we realy eternal ....i peer into the abyss and an pounder why is there always a tomorrow as we spin around on this purople marbel and not realize we siz off into the great morrow looking into tomorrow and life around us seems to follow as we peer out into the blue yonder ....?.... what is it that hold us together is it ... really all this empty space or is it us we seek a mere percentage we are of life we peek we see it is only me .... me whom looks out and no longer ponders ....it is us and we and I and me that loook beyond us and guides Our God Whom Art In Heaven .... always on time ...?...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Occams Razor theory seems to not agree with you. Care to address Meadowcroft?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


If you're going to quote me out of context, then what's the point of this debate?
Oh wait! Everyone who thumps the bible takes quotes out of context. That's 95% of what's wrong with this world. Jesus Christ!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire

But (and you knew this was coming), Scientists have also stated that in order for there to be enough water to cover the entire planet (which would be necessary to drown all trees, as you're suggesting), this water would have to go somewhere. It isn't in the ocean. Scientist claim that in order for there to be enough water on Earth to completely cover the land, and to be able to rain down for 40 days and nights over the entire globe, the air would be so humid that you would drown if you took a breath. Not to mention that 40 days still wouldn't be enough to cover mountains.

It is MORE LIKELY that an alien vessel carrying mutated DNA samples (able to exist on Earth) came down to deliver modern animals and humans, than it is that a massive amount of water materialized to drown the Earth out of the vengeance of a "Loving" God, and then all disappeared leaving a single family and a bunch of animals to walk off a boat that got stuck on the top of a mountain where the animals then had to leave this boat, swim across oceans to get home, and then this family would have to inbreed to create all of the races of the world. Which one sounds more plausible to you?


Response to paragraph one.............No smarts used in the following statement...just common sense....God possess the "supernatural"

Response to paragraph two.............. yep he is "loving"...you like Rage Against the Machine? check out THE LOVE: www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Im not sure what adding the word "living" will do to support the arguement?
There is a LIVING root system The Pando Colony in Utah which is actually 80 000 years old.
Bacteria have been crystalised from 250 million years ago, and when reawakend it was alive so it is considered 'living'

The living arguement is kinda odd OT.
The archaological record has evidence going waaay back, just lik ewhen you die, ur bones will survive for a time and they get added to the record.
edit on 23-11-2010 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That reply was......childish. I am merely stating the ahem Clear and Obvious FACT that you ignored this statement:

A colony of 47,000 quaking aspen trees (nicknamed "Pando") covering 106 acres (Template:Rnd/c4dec0 |43|(0)]] ha) in Fishlake National Forest, United States is considered one of the oldest and largest organisms in the world. It has been estimated to be 800,000 to a million years old, although tree ring samples determine individual, above-ground, trees to only average 130 years.[4][5][6][7] A colony of Huon pine trees covering 1 hectare (Template:Rnd/c4dec1 |2.5|(1)]] acres) on Mount Read, Tasmania is estimated to be around 10,000 years old, as determined by DNA samples taken from pollen collected from the sediment of a nearby lake.


that alone answers that

- the oldest living tree is ~800,000 years old
- The Flood obviously did no good if it couldn't wipe out a couple of Aspens. Not to mention most were undergound. They should of died due to carbon dioxide loss.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
In the immortal words of Jack Sparrow;
"I wash my hands of this weirdness."



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire
reply to post by OldThinker
 


If you're going to quote me out of context, then what's the point of this debate?
Oh wait! Everyone who thumps the bible takes quotes out of context. That's 95% of what's wrong with this world. Jesus Christ!


Sorry how did I quote you out of context...I'll take it back if I did...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by scooterstrats
 


Edit for wanting an answer.
edit on 11/23/10 by scooterstrats because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The living arguement is kinda odd OT.
The archaological record has evidence going waaay back, just lik ewhen you die, ur bones will survive for a time and they get added to the record.
edit on 23-11-2010 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)


Actually "living" is in the Title of the article I posted....

Statistically...only one (1) tree out of all the millions is noteworthy of discussion for those that hold to creation and those that want to debate...

I don't know if I believe in a young earth...its just fun to stir the pot intellectually speaking



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join