Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jason's trees!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    I posted this to the GospelAdvocatingForum list, somewhat as a diversion and in connection with some of the things said there about the Todd/Buff Grand Canyon
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I posted this to the GospelAdvocatingForum list, somewhat as a
      diversion and in connection with some of the things said there about
      the Todd/Buff Grand Canyon discussion that may begin soon:

      Jason had asked, in part:

      > Why does tree ring dating only give an age of
      > between 3,800 and 4,400 years for trees?

      I responded:

      > My first impression is that the reason for that is
      > that the trees that are being dated are no older than
      > that! Most trees die long before they even get that
      > old, don't they?
      >
      > Like, even if you found a tree that lived a billion
      > years ago, the ring method may show only that it was
      > 30 years old (i.e. that it only lived 30 years).
      >
      > Am I missing something here?

      To which Jason then responded with:

      > Yes, the trees are still alive.

      I guess I may still be missing something, for I do not see the
      relevance of the tree's rings to the age of the earth/universe
      issue. So, we've got some trees a few thousand years old, "still
      alive".

      I did find this comment over on the Answers In Genesis page:

      > Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why,
      > if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years,
      > some should not have lasted much longer.

      Sounds to me like they aren't even using tree rings for purposes of
      dating the beginning of things; just trying to show all the trees
      before a few thousand years died out, like real quick, like in a
      worldwide flood.

      Is that all Jason was getting at? I'm not into the worldwide flood
      issue much except as an observer. Well, I'm not into many issues
      except as an observer and sometime commentator. I am still waiting
      for the good brethren to find out for me what the source was for the
      popular claim that there is a statue of Matthew Maury at the Naval
      Academy showing Maury with a bible in one outstretched hand. I don't
      think such a statue exists anywhere, but the claim is still out there.

      If I understand the tree ring thing, it doesn't have much, if
      anything to do with dating the grand canyon or the age of the
      earth/universe. I'm wondering if Jason would accept the fact that
      certain "dead" trees may be dated to significant time periods before
      about 10,000 years ago, using methods other than counting rings.

      Am I still missing something?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.