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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


It seems he has his faith in carbon dating, so if he doesn't accept a real-life 50mil+ year old tree, then.......




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


Why didn't you mention Jurupa?

Or the King Clone and other Clonal trees?

What about Old Tjikko?

Or old Rasmus?

How you ever heard of the statitical term OUTLIER? Maybe Special Cuase?

Why is it that 99.999% of living trees and living systems mentioned throughout the field within the young earth timeframe? Shall I list them all for you...

Why just one (1) older? Why just one 790,000 years older? I'd say a Gage R&R should be preformed on that....I'd say some BIAS was introduced there...I dunno?




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by glitch88
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.


You are not only dodging the old guy but you are off topic...



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That is not the point, nor does it matter how many trees are that old. the point is, this is finished, we have proved you wrong, so you can stop spwing your theory of young earth. Isn't that the whole point? Of young earth theory? well, it has been proven wrong, no need for any more comments



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This fellow asks some good questions too...the disparity of the supposed age of the earth and the lack of really OLD trees can't be ignored....if you are honest?





Why Aren't Earth's Oldest Trees Older?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The sheer girth of certain ancient, wizened trees can take one’s breath away. Wired Science recently featured a collection of images of some of earth’s oldest trees. Although the age estimates given for these antique specimens vary from a few to tens of thousands of years, the majority of them are consistent with a biblical timeframe for earth history.

Wired Science compiled the images and information on 12 ancient, still-living trees.1 Of these, two are “clonal trees,” which were not seeded but presumably sprouted from underground offshoots of a now-lost original tree. Clonal tree ages are estimated based on presumed rates of outward spreading.

The other ten trees in the series were dated by extrapolating growth estimates back into the past or by counting their tree rings. Tree-ring dating can be done without cutting down the tree by use of a specialized coring device that removes a slender cylinder of wood from the tree’s interior.

Of the trees—which are located around the globe, from Iran to New Zealand, from Chile to Wales, and even Japan—the oldest individual still-living tree is in California. Appropriately nicknamed Methuselah, the hardy bristlecone pine from the dry and salty high elevation of Inyo National Forest is in a protected area to discourage visitors and vandalism.

Wired Science stated that Methuselah was 4,765 years old, but Edmund Schulman, the pioneering scientist in determining the age of trees, dated Methuselah by “cross-dating” (ring-counting) it at 4,789 rings.2 An online gymnosperm database states that this age was most likely determined in 1957, which would make the tree 4,842 years old in 2010.

Why is Methuselah, or any other long-living tree, not a great deal older than this if the earth itself is millions of years old? Indeed, Schulman asked regarding California’s majestic giant sequoias, which he cross-dated at just over three millennia, “Does this mean that shortly preceding 3275 years ago all the then living giant sequoias were wiped out by some catastrophe?”3

And how reliable is cross-dating when a variety of dates can be determined for the same tree? Tree growth rings do not always indicate annual cycles. Factors like weather can cause trees to form multiple rings in one year. In the four seasons of the northern hemisphere, spring growth accounts for a new ring. But tropical trees add a new ring of growth whenever conditions are favorable, which can occur more than once in a year. And although the region of California that hosts bristlecones is arid today, it is possible that during the Ice Age it was much less so.4,5

If Methuselah sprouted at that time, then some of its earlier rings may have formed in only a few years. Another cause of “multiplicity”—when trees build more than one ring per year—is that bristlecone pines have been observed forming a new ring with a simulated mid-season drought.6 Thus, a two-week dry spell followed by watering can cause a tree to shut down and then re-establish growth, mimicking a “winter” season’s ring.

So, cross-dating requires making assumptions about the past, as do all historical investigations based on natural processes. Since the main assumption of annual ring growth has been shown to be false in certain cases, this method can only provide an approximate age. The uncertainty of dating even such directly observable phenomena as still-living trees is reflected by the wide date ranges provided for some the trees featured in Wired Science.

While the differences between cross-dated tree ages and biblical chronology can be easily accounted for with ring-generating factors other than seasons, the differences between the trees’ estimated ages and evolutionary time are unbridgeable. The very oldest known tree better fits a biblical age for the earth of thousands, not millions, of years.


Sources:

References

1.Ghose, T. The Oldest Trees on the Planet. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com March 17, 2010, accessed April 1, 2010.
2.Earle, C. J., ed. Pinus longaeva. The Gymnosperm Database. Posted on conifers.org, last updated December 12, 2008, accessed April 1, 2010.
3.Schulman, E. 1954. Longevity under Adversity in Conifers. Science. 119 (3091): 399.
4.Lorey, F. 1994. Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology. Acts & Facts. 23: (6).
5.Vardiman, L. 2008. A Dark and Stormy World. Answers. 3 (4): 80.
6.Matthews, M. Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines. Journal of Creation. 20 (3): 95-103.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I guess my last post was ignored lol.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
How can this thread be 6 pages long and we can only find one flag?

I don't know how many flags it deserves...neither do you friend.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


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.



For the last time OP, there isn't just one, there are 47,000 trees. Most dating back to 800,000 years old and farther, and again, you prove that you fail to review the info. You just don'e want to give up, you just want to win the argument, you are just trolling, 47,000 trees ~800,000 years old. Its done that answers ALL your questions



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That is not the point, nor does it matter how many trees are that old. the point is, this is finished, we have proved you wrong, so you can stop spwing your theory of young earth. Isn't that the whole point? Of young earth theory? well, it has been proven wrong, no need for any more comments


Readers please look up a few posts and notice a great follow-up question I asked mr10K about statistical concept of anomalies and the supposed 800,000 yr old system and notice his response ignoring me as he has accused me many times...and diverts the discussion to me puushing the young earth which i certainly have not...this is what happens many when a non-believer is confronted with someone who doesn't back down... mr10K you brought the fight friend...OT will not fight with you, nor back down...you failed to answer my rebuttal...that cool..many don't...but diverting and the "no more comments" thing is cowardly...but it was fun engaging you when you were here..God bless!



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


So either I'm attacking you and trying to start a creationist/evolutionist fight, or I'm dodging you? Seriously? And it is no more off topic than your last response to me was.

You have no interest in actually discussing your own topic unless what is discussed agrees with your stance.

I'm with the previous poster that said, "I was my hands of this weirdness". I'm out.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I think you overlooked my answer...

We have skeleton fossils by the thousands because bones don't decompose like trees. When a tree falls, it slowly rotts away. It doesn't have a skeleton that would remain.

Go to your local forest, look at the dead trunks. See how they rott away? How long do you think they'll be there before all the rain and moisture makes them rott away until they turn into earth?

When something like a human dies, the skeletton remains for a VERY long time...especially if circumstances are right. That's why we found remains of homo sapiens from over 250,000 years ago.

Cliffnotes: Trees don't have skeletons, duh!


EDIT: And I dare you to say you don't trust carbon dating...do it, I got an entire bunch of scientific evidence lined up to prove you wrong. Easy copy/paste job because BlueJay made the same mistake in another thread.
edit on 23-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I guess my last post was ignored lol.


No
not ignored....do you notice OT's a tad busy here....

Give it to me again...I haven't stopped typing for 2 hours....



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yea, sorry, Mr XYZ...how are you?

I've been a little busy...

You response about rotting trees makes sense to me...good point!


Now what about only 1 tree left...just one?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
How can this thread be 6 pages long ....


You obviously don't know OT's affect round here


6 pages is nothing


But a few flags would be nice...oh well



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
If a tree fails on the world, and no one sees it.
Does it not make the ground?

What exactly is the relationship between the lifespan of one organism, and the age of the Earth?
Perhaps the OP can address that relationship?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yea, sorry, Mr XYZ...how are you?

I've been a little busy...

You response about rotting trees makes sense to me...good point!


Now what about only 1 tree left...just one?


There you go!

I think the fact that we found trees that are 8 million years old (!!!) should put this thread to rest


Pretty sure this should answer your question...well, kind of...by showing you that your "no tree over 10k years old" premise is faulty.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That is not the point, nor does it matter how many trees are that old. the point is, this is finished, we have proved you wrong, so you can stop spwing your theory of young earth. Isn't that the whole point? Of young earth theory? well, it has been proven wrong, no need for any more comments


Readers please look up a few posts and notice a great follow-up question I asked mr10K about statistical concept of anomalies and the supposed 800,000 yr old system and notice his response ignoring me as he has accused me many times...and diverts the discussion to me puushing the young earth which i certainly have not...this is what happens many when a non-believer is confronted with someone who doesn't back down... mr10K you brought the fight friend...OT will not fight with you, nor back down...you failed to answer my rebuttal...that cool..many don't...but diverting and the "no more comments" thing is cowardly...but it was fun engaging you when you were here..God bless!



-sigh- I think you should check my old threads. I am 100% Christian, and that is besides the fact that you stated tha I showed you one tree..................When I have not. This is what? 5th time I've posted this?:

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.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
For the last time OP, there isn't just one, there are 47,000 trees.


How many.....root systems?

ONE


The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by mr10k
For the last time OP, there isn't just one, there are 47,000 trees.


How many.....root systems?

ONE


The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system


Wait...are you asking why we can't find a live tree that is older than 10k years? And you claim there's none because of the flood?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yea, sorry, Mr XYZ...how are you?

I've been a little busy...

You response about rotting trees makes sense to me...good point!


Now what about only 1 tree left...just one?


There you go!

I think the fact that we found trees that are 8 million years old (!!!) should put this thread to rest


Pretty sure this should answer your question...well, kind of...by showing you that your "no tree over 10k years old" premise is faulty.




Now now old friend, don't get too proud of your self...a complement from OT is a rare thing to you I know.... but

"a rotting tree does'nt an OP answer" in my best Yoda



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join