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

Originally posted by scooterstrats
reply to post by OldThinker

 

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

Meadowcroft? Please give me some time to look into that...thank you.

reply to post by OldThinker


If you are just stirring our minds, why do you not take the information you are given? You hit the spoon we feed you without looking what what was on the plate. At least lookat the information before you let this thread go on to 100 replies, it doesn't seem neccessary, as all the information is there to prove the earth is alot older than 10,000 years. And what does the fact tat you are talkin about that its living have to do with it? The information is still there.

Originally posted by OldThinker

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

So you like to "stir the pot" just for attention. Waste of bandwidth.

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

Sounds like trolling to me. "The act of". Not name calling.

reply to post by mr10k


Did you answer the OP?

Why can't we find a living tree over 10K? Heck its in your avatar name mr10k

reply to post by OldThinker
Hello OT,
Hmm
well from what I understand the earth has gone trough some serious geological changes
which could cause an inconsistency in ring data.
I have seen fossils embedded with creatures not of this time
And I have seen fossils embedded with what appeared to be old tree fibers.
The fact that this was in rock says that something of a very large global event occurred.
this would also tell me that trees could have been wiped out due to an event of unimaginable size.

Originally posted by OldThinker
Did you answer the OP?

Why can't we find a living tree over 10K?

Perhaps you can answer it for us. The pot has been stirred.
Try serving the dish now.

Originally posted by cluckerspud

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

Sounds like trolling to me. "The act of". Not name calling.

Nope just intellectually honest enough to admit there is a lot that is unanswered, friend...how bout you? Nope you like calling people names and your worldview is "tight"

Oh well young man let's put a few decades on that worldview...check back with OT, I'll be here

reply to post by OldThinker


Trees die. Archeologist and Geologist trace back the age of Earth with something called "The Law of Superposition"

The Law of Superposition

Beating a dead horse, but...

-Humans cut big trees down for raw materials
-Forest fires from lightning
-Floods
-Beetles
-The Emerald Ash Borer
-Giraffes
-Drought
-Parking Lots
-Volcanos
-Tsunamis
-Rock Slides
-Glaciation (probably why you won't find a tree much older in Scandinavia than 10,000 years)

Also, the very science that is able to analyze trees for dendrochronology is also the science that will tell you about petrified trees, coal, crude oil, diamonds, sedimentary rock and so forth.

You want living organisms? Ok... Here you go.
Oldest Living Organisms

Some excerpts:

October, 1999; 250-million-year-old bacteria were found in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico.

May, 1995; 40-million-year-old bacteria (Bacillus sphaericus) were found in the stomach of a bee encased in amber.

1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the rainforests of Tasmania...It was found to be over 43,000 years old

August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera)...over 13,000 years old

March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva...estimated to be 13,000 years old

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata)...estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old

So what will be your excuse for dismissing these examples?

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Hello OT,
Hmm
well from what I understand the earth has gone trough some serious geological changes
which could cause an inconsistency in ring data.
I have seen fossils embedded with creatures not of this time
And I have seen fossils embedded with what appeared to be old tree fibers.
The fact that this was in rock says that something of a very large global event occurred.
this would also tell me that trees could have been wiped out due to an event of unimaginable size.

Hi LD,

Thanks for a measured response....I like those words you used like "could be" ...to me that is intellectually honest...yes the points you raise are well thought thru...

The OP's question still stands tho...it is odd that the world's oldesty living tree just happens to be the same age as young earth proponents said it was BEFORE the tree was "discovered"

Nice post friend!

Originally posted by OldThinker
Nope just intellectually honest enough to admit there is a lot that is unanswered, friend

Unanswered by you that is.

Originally posted by OldThinker
how bout you?

What?!

Originally posted by OldThinker
Nope you like calling people names

and your worldview is "tight"

Didn't call you anything, just your actions. You seem to like calling names. Friend?! I'm offended.

Originally posted by OldThinker
Oh well young man let's put a few decades on that worldview...check back with OT, I'll be here

Put a who in the what now?

Originally posted by glitch88
You want living organisms? Ok... Here you go.
Oldest Living Organisms

...................

So what will be your excuse for dismissing these examples?

What is with all the emotion friend? Relax....

I don't want to dismiss any thing you post...I'm glad you are here....

I asked a simple question in the OP....I don't want this to be a Christian Creationist / Evolutionist fight thread..ok?

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by OldThinker
Nope just intellectually honest enough to admit there is a lot that is unanswered, friend

Unanswered by you that is.

Yes...it was unanswered.... I am mature enough to know I wasn't there...I'm glad you have life by the balls

More patience, less beer

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by glitch88
You want living organisms? Ok... Here you go.
Oldest Living Organisms

...................

So what will be your excuse for dismissing these examples?

What is with all the emotion friend? Relax....

I don't want to dismiss any thing you post...I'm glad you are here....

I asked a simple question in the OP....I don't want this to be a Christian Creationist / Evolutionist fight thread..ok?

Okay, now admit the fact that your question has been answered. And if you need trees specifically:

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.

READ THIS ^^

There, so now if you disregard this post, we will know for a fact you are trolling.

reply to post by OldThinker


No emotion here. Just stating the facts and wondering what you are going to say to dismiss it like you did with all the other examples people have given you.

Petrified wood requires VERY specific circumstances to form. Most wood just decomposes and therefore won't leave a fossil. Go to your local forrest and look at dead trees...will they still be there in 20 years? What about that same dead tree trunk in 100 years?

Wood isn't the same as BONES! Bones don't decompose in the same way as wood and therefore we find a lot more fossils of skeletons.

Now, I'm not sure why you created this thread. We have human fossils that are 250,000 years old!

Something else it remembered,
I was in Yellowstone National park this fall,.
and one thing I saw was a petrified tree dated at over 50 million
years old.
Of course one has to put the faith in carbon dating.
However, after seeing the park, and other parts of the world.
I would give this evaluation a VERY plausible rating.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by OldThinker
Nope just intellectually honest enough to admit there is a lot that is unanswered, friend

Unanswered by you that is.

Yes...it was unanswered.... I am mature enough to know I wasn't there...I'm glad you have life by the balls

More patience, less beer

Whats with all the emotion?
Oh I got life by the balls hard. Firm grip, slight twisting, occasional pulls and plenty of juggling.
Beer intake is zero. Pasta is delicious, purple is a color and Neil Diamond has a funny forehead.