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

well i find petrified hunks of wood all the time.
they have to be old cause there petrified.
So your 9 thousand years sounds like a crackpot idea to say the least.

cause it takes way more than 9 thousand years to make it that way lol

Its so sad how people are willing to delude themselves and completely disregard logical thinking in order to make themselves feel better about their "beliefs" based on a book that any man could write.
Trees are a living organism they cant live forever, jeez. Are you a scientists qualified to tell us trees should live more than xxx years? NO. They are also completely dependant on the ground beneath and the environment around remaining relatively stable which means no major earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, glaciers etc for 10,000+ years? Thats pretty damn improbable. O and they need the climate to stay stable which yea obviously doesn't happen.

This is the saddest thread I've read besides prediction threads.

reply to post by spacevisitor


spacevisitor, thank you so very much for taking the time to do this 3 thumbs up!

Originally posted by TheAmused
well i find petrified hunks of wood all the time.
they have to be old cause there petrified.
So your 9 thousand years sounds like a crackpot idea to say the least.

cause it takes way more than 9 thousand years to make it that way lol

You speak with such "observed" confidence...heck I left my bagel out yesterday morning....and we played baseball with it this afternoon

Originally posted by darkest4
Its so sad how people are willing to delude themselves and completely disregard logical thinking in order to make themselves feel better about their "beliefs" based on a book that any man could write

darkest4, hi...thank you for stopping by my friend...

Anyone could write?

Really?

You mean like one author?


A short illustration…Remember Back to the Future and the DeLorean (sp?) Imagine if you were Michael J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Different people! Different cultures! Difference Time frames! Different Premises! Different World view! etc...

Logically speaking you would have five unconnected books with five different perspectives, right?

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

Doesn't prove it God's Word yet though...just something that might warrant another look.

Point 2 ---- Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

SO...with all that said...we have only two LOGICAL outcomes. No religious double-talk here) Either you BELIEVE or you REJECT. Really no other options right? If you believe, then to you HE IS LORD. If you REJECT there are really only two options for you.

1) JC knew he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LIAR

2) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LUNATIC.

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC or LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him.

Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Point 3 ---- Most direct followers were killed for believing in JC. If they had stole his body and the Romans excused, at least one of them would have squilled just before their execution right? I would have...

but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw… ???

To sum up, Chronicles of Narnia author, CS Lewis said, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

have to run, skipped to the end, but in the link of picturs of trees posted by by the creator of this thread
"While Pando isn’t technically the oldest individual tree, this clonal colony of Quaking Aspen in Utah is truly ancient. The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system. The “trembling giant” got its start at least 80,000 years ago, when all of our human ancestors were still living in Africa. But some estimate the woodland could be as old as 1 million years, which would mean Pando predates the earliest Homo sapiens by 800,000 years. At 6,615 tons, Pando is also the heaviest living organism on earth".

reply to post by OldThinker

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).

You do realize that was almost 30 years ago...carbon dating made GREAT progress since then and is a 100% valid and confirmed way to accurately determine the age of things.

Your sources are clearly outdated. If you're interested about all the different methods (yes, we use more than one nowadays), see this LINK

By the way, I still have no clue what your main argument is? What are you trying to prove by falsely claiming there's no trees older than 10k years? The flood?

reply to post by OldThinker


rofl, first of all I was referring to the book of genesis. 2nd the entire of your post is so full of ridiculous religious ranting and faulty logic and hypocracy ("Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards." lolol.. except if they are prophets from any other faith but your own right..then they are crazy liars) that you are clearly not even worth trying to argue with.

Trees are not immortal.....rocks however have a habit of sticking around a loooong time:

inspiringnews.wordpress.com...

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

Your ancestors cut them down to make dinner.....

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

The reason carbon dating is far from accurate is the fact that you can have a bone thats only 50 years old become fossilized or a 50 year old tree that has been petrified and carbon dating would be innacurate. It has happened many times before. I've read about cases like that in the past I did a quick search and really couldn't find it but the fact of the matter is...You can truely tell age by how many layers of rock that a fossil is in or a petrified tree. Carbon dating is based of theories yet to be proven unless we can go back in time watch a dino die, go into the future dig it up and date it to see if carbon dating is truely accurate. As many lies that are spread through the main stream scientific community its hard to tell rather they are telling the truth or not. There are none mainstream scientist who have totally different findings and theories then the others that are trying to spread truth and not BS about a lot of things!

reply to post by OldThinker


Why not think of it this way: Your interpretation of any book is from your relative perspective. There are 6-7billion humans on this planet and each have their own interpretation and live in their own "reality".

It seems you are equating this tree with some sign that the earth and all of creation is around 10000 years old. Furthermore, it also seems you are asserting that any evidence that suggests an older earth, was actually placed there by "God" in order to give the illusion of an older earth.

Please let me know if my interpretation of your interpretation is incorrect. Thank you.

How can such a thread make it front page ?
I mean seriously...just the title of it...
The geologist in me just died a little...

By the way about carbon datation, remember that you can only use it on objects not older than 50 kyears, this is explained by the half-life of the 14C isotope wich is 5,730 ± 40 years.

For older objects we use K/Ar or U/Th datation with a greater half-life.

Ever wondered where all of this trees from Carboniferous (359.2 ± 2.5 to 299.0 ± 0.8 Million years ago) and past geological times went ? Some of it were degraded via bacteria and was again part of the Carbon cycle and a very little part of it is now in your gas tank...or in your bbq.

And for the one who will ask how do we know that such a long time ago trees were present ? Via the study of pollen grains aka palynology. This little things are pretty resistant and can be very well conserved in sediment, making datation and species definition quite easy.

reply to post by OldThinker


Trees die because they have a relatively short lifespan compared to something like "spaceship earth".

I can understand the initial inquiry, but after some diligent research, I think that you would find that trees are not as resilient to a heavy life span as one might think.

It was an excellent question however.

S&F.

reply to post by OldThinker


Unfortunately your creationist clap trap, where apparently humans rode on Dinosaurs is defeated by the fact that they've found humanoid remains that date back 4.4 million years.
NY Post

Your argument is a straw man argument at best. I don't completely deny an all-knowing creator type--after all, how can we be sure of anything? However, I don't see how science would negatively effect that preposition--why couldn't God have created the Higgs boson and then the Universe? The Catholic Church has already settled on a position that ETs would be our "Space Brothers"---so why exactly does the scientifically proven story of the timeline of Earth contradict the Bible?

But, the fact is, humans never rode on Dinosaurs, and guess what? We've been around millions of years, not thousands. There is no cover-up, no anti-Christian bias. This is the exact reason this type of "creationist" science should not be taught in schools--it's unproveable and based on a fairy tale that has been rewritten thousands of times since it's creation--the Bible.

reply to post by OldThinker


Just because we have not found intact tree's over 10k years old does not mean they did not exist. Where do you think coal comes from? Lets google...

Coal is formed from the remains of trees and plants which grew millions of years ago. They delayed and sank into the ground, and were pressed under layers of rock and other minerals.
As this vegetation dried up, it turned into peat, then into coal. The Coal is found underground in layers called seams. Mines have to be make in order to dig it out.
coal in the world was formed in the Carboniferous Period, which occured 360 and 280 million years ago.

Now I actually see ways that earth could be 6k years old etc if our dating system as well as other science is wrong, if time is not as linear as we expect or if the earth was simply 'created' with a history to it - why not.
BUT if we are going to argue against science we must do it with science, and a quick check of the science book says we do have other evidence of tree's throughout history

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








Go the the petrified forest in the American southwest and you will find many trees that are much much older than 10K years. Also where do you get the idea that the age of the earth has anything to do with trees? Does not seem scientific to me. Sounds more like the sort of thing that fundamentalist christians would come up with.

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

That's funny considering the oldest known tree is 350 million years old.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

reply to post by OldThinker

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

Considering the collection of books used in the bible were chosen and edited by a committee of men 300 years later to fit their own social agenda, of course the result was a one themed, continuing story, lol. Let's not forget that it still contains many contradictions.

Point 2 ---- Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

He wasn't the first person to convince others he was god and he wasn't the last.

Are termites and fungi not real? Both have been known to decompose trees. Did you know that christianity and judaism weren't the first religions, nor was the bible the first holy book created. People have always had myths to explain the unexplainable. I don't mind bizarre theories, but thinking the earth isn't old is just ludicrous and has been PROVEN time and time again. Many things in science can't be proven and haven't been proven, but the fact that the earth is very old is.