Jump to content


Some Questions


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 24 February 2010 - 03:29 PM

By "oldest known" they are referring to the life span, so the oldest known tree lived for ruffly 5,000 years. Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is done by counting the rings of the tree, one ring per year. Counting the rings gives you the age.

But that's not all you can find out through the rings. Depending on the weather conditions you get different widths of the rings. Trees in the same area get the same weather conditions, so all the trees in that area will have identical rings (or close enough for measurements). Now when you get trees that lived in the same area but at different times that overlap, you can build a tree ring dates that spans over the lives of many trees.

That is what they did in the 2004 study creating a tree ring date going back 26,000 years. It wasn't one individual tree, but a collection of trees living in the same area at different times that overlap.

View Post



My apologies, but I don't know enough about this subject. You should probably ask someone else if you want a good debate.
However the original poster posted something about a tree that carbon dating was used on, which I responded it.

Anyway, I did find this:

ARE THE BRISTLE-CONE PINE TREES REALLY SO OLD?

WALTER E. LAMMERTS

Various treatments were given to 8-month-old bristle-cone pine seedlings; and it was found that supplementing the winter day length with a 250-watt heat lamp in order to give a total of 16 hours of illumination proved most effective. The lamp was placed about three feet above the seedlings, and the temperature in the growth chamber was kept at about 70'F. Those which received a short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control seedlings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring. The bearing of this on the estimates of the age of the bristle-cone pine forest is discussed. Under the San Francisco type of both spring and fall rainfall with a relatively dry perod in the summer the young forests on the White Mountains would have grown an extra ring per year quite often. Accordingly it is believed that the presumed 7100 year age postulated for these trees by Ferguson would be reduced to about 5600 years, on the assumption that extra rings would be formed by stress during about 50% of the years between the end of the Flood and about 1200 A.D.


http://www.creationr...ts/sum20_2.html
And the guys who wrote that:
http://creationwiki....Walter_Lammerts

This was written a while ago, but his experiment showed that under some conditions bristle-cone pines can grow an extra ring in a year.
However, the conditions at around the time of the flood could have been different as well.

#22 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:58 PM

Trees can have more than one ring in a growing season. Thats why tree ring data should only ever be used alongside other lines of evidence for climatology.

#23 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 08:15 PM

My apologies, but I don't know enough about this subject. You should probably ask someone else if you want a good debate.


No need to apologize. I wasn't looking for a debate, just a conversation. I don't know that much about tree-ring dating either. Between my last post and this post I'll probably use up most of my knowledge on the subject.

However the original poster posted something about a tree that carbon dating was used on, which I responded it.

Anyway, I did find this:
http://www.creationr...ts/sum20_2.html
And the guys who wrote that:
http://creationwiki....Walter_Lammerts

This was written a while ago, but his experiment showed that under some conditions bristle-cone pines can grow an extra ring in a year.
However, the conditions at around the time of the flood could have been different as well.

View Post


Any tree under the right conditions can grow more than one ring per year, and in some rare cases no rings will form (very rare). Usually when doing tree ring dating, scientists look at multiple trees to try to smooth out an average time line. And McStone is right, usually this method is used with other methods to verify the data.

#24 Guest_solja247_*

Guest_solja247_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 11:24 PM

That age was acquired using carbon dating.

Which, is innacurate.
http://www.answersin...prove-the-bible
http://www.answersin...ic-dating-prove

How do scientists know how much carbon was there in the first place?


But the problem is, there is so many ways to find out how the Earth is...None of them date the Earth to 6,000 years old.

If the earth were billions, or even trillions of years old, there would never have or could ever be macroevolution. It's a 2nd law problem. It's an information problem, too.


Now I like the idea of 'information theory' but no one upholds to it, only creationists. If it was against information the majority of sciencetists would believe it.

#25 Guest_solja247_*

Guest_solja247_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 12:49 AM

I have another question. Is it possible that God used evolution?

Eg. The Brown bear. After the flood ice age struck and for some reason God some of the genetic code of the brown bear, so it is now a Polar bear.

(I was reading a scientific journal talking about evolution taking giant lepas at times, the reason could be, God)

#26 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 25 February 2010 - 04:45 AM

I have another question. Is it possible that God used evolution?

Eg. The Brown bear. After the flood ice age struck and for some reason God some of the genetic code of the brown bear, so it is now a Polar bear.

(I was reading a scientific journal talking about evolution taking giant lepas at times, the reason could be, God)

View Post



I personally have no issues with the idea of a God using evolution, well except for the fact that I don't believe in any form of supernatural entity...


But if you do believe that then you would be a Theistic Evolutionist. There are quite a few on this board. You also have to take the view that Genesis 1&2 are not literal.

The other problem, is that you actually remove origional sin because there is no Adam and Eve. Then you have to ask yourself where does the soul come in...

#27 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:48 AM

I have another question. Is it possible that God used evolution?


Absolutely!

Peace

#28 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 07:21 AM

Does anybody else think of it as weird to say "God used evolution?" Seems a rather weird thing to say to me. Do you think God 'uses' gravity to make the planets orbit the Sun, or does God 'use' meteorological phenomena to make the weather? Seems to me that these are all just natural processes that we use to explain the natural world.

Another way to phrase it would be; could God exist and evolution be the process by which life is related and has diversified?

The answer is quite clearly yes. Christianity, nor any other religion, necessarily relies on supernatural creation miracles.

#29 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 February 2010 - 08:23 AM

Okay, so you are basically avoiding the purpose of the sun in life.

I was including it. Unless you feel that by saying "heat" that I was excluding the sun.

The sun is constantly providing an energy source for food creation for ALL creatures...well except the ones living by underwater volcano vents...

So what. The heat from the sun cannot supply the energy to do anything. Frequently to get something done with heat, a mechanism is required to direct that heat. That is the case we have with DNA.

This is why the second law doesn't apply to evolution.  The sun provides the energy for the dna to be written.

The second law applies to everything where heat exists. Read the website I posted, it's not only good for this discussion, it's good for your whole life.

Honestly and truly, If you are going to use the second law argument, which does not apply to evolution, then you have to accept that the second law would also not allow life to live, for things to grow, for children to be born, yet all this happens.

View Post

That you say the second law does not apply to evolution is so anti-scientific it's hard to respond to civilly. You really should have more respect for the scientists you claim to rely on for your worldview.

#30 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 February 2010 - 08:31 AM

Hmmm...the frying pan on the counter would not cool if the ambient temperature was the temperature that the frying pan started with.  So your point is moot.

The frying ppan will not cool past the ambient temperature of the environment, and guess what!  That temperature is due in part to the sun.  Again we are not a closed system.

View Post

Java, there is a concept called "charitable reading". Obviously I was talking about a hot pan cooling to ambient temp. The fact that you didn't pick up on this means you aren't interested in having an honest conversation.

For those who might be interested in an honest conversation, the fact that the 2nd law applies to the frying pan, and that it isn't in a closed system, means that the second law applies to the formation of DNA for exactly the same reason.

#31 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 February 2010 - 08:33 AM

But the problem is, there is so many ways to find out how the Earth is...None of them date the Earth to 6,000 years old.

View Post[/right]

What???? The majority of scientists reject Shannon???

#32 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 25 February 2010 - 12:47 PM

Yorzhik,

First I want to thank you for trying to keep the conversation civil. I attempt to do that myself and sometimes I slip up. So second I want to apologize if you felt I was being flippant or terse. Third if in fact i thought you were not being civil I would call you on it and give you 2 or 3 posts to correct your tone before reporting you to the moderators.

Now onto your post!

I was including it. Unless you feel that by saying "heat" that I was excluding the sun.

Up until this point you seem to have conveniently ignored the mass amount of energy that the sun provides life to do its thing. If you weren't ignoring it, then it would be nice to hear what you have to say on it.

So what. The heat from the sun cannot supply the energy to do anything.


Uhm I think every single scientist ever would have to disagree with you.


Frequently to get something done with heat, a mechanism is required to direct that heat. That is the case we have with DNA.


Good you do realize that the heat from the sun provides energy for life to do its thing. I can't really follow where you wanted to go with this actually. You first say that the energy from the sun can't do anything, and then in the very next sentence you say that life can work with the heat from the sun to do its thing...ie make copies of itself.


The second law applies to everything where heat exists. Read the website I posted, it's not only good for this discussion, it's good for your whole life.
That you say the second law does not apply to evolution is so anti-scientific it's hard to respond to civilly. You really should have more respect for the scientists you claim to rely on for your worldview.

View Post



And the site I provided to you, a little site you probably heard of suggests that you don't use the second law to argue against evolution. That site is AIG, run by creationists for creationists to discuss the problems with Evolution to those of us who believe that Evolution explains the how's and why's life is the way it is.

Java, there is a concept called "charitable reading". Obviously I was talking about a hot pan cooling to ambient temp. The fact that you didn't pick up on this means you aren't interested in having an honest conversation.


What made you think that I didn't 'know' you were talking about ambient temperature? Obviously I did because I brought it up in my post. If you didn't like how I worded my answer that is in fact your problem.

Also why don't you tell me where I have been dishonest with you, or even distorted the facts. That would be very nice to hear. You seem to think that I am some sort of liar. We've only been conversing for a few posts, so you shouldn't have any difficulty doing so.

For those who might be interested in an honest conversation, the fact that the 2nd law applies to the frying pan, and that it isn't in a closed system, means that the second law applies to the formation of DNA for exactly the same reason.


We have an ambient temperature due to the heat and light of the sun effecting our atmosphere. I hope you realize that this energy will keep a frying pan at its ambient temperature, as well provide the means for plants to grow, for cold blooded critters to heat and move, for any number of things. If this constant light and heat would shut off, then life would run out of energy to copy its own DNA, that is how the second law would apply.

Now I'm not saying that you cannot use the second law to predict things, such as atmospheric conditions, or how quickly something will cool once its taken off a hot stove, but I am saying that we are not a closed system, so you can't use it to discount evolution.

#33 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:05 PM

:lol:
Please apply the 2nd law to what you're saying then.

View Post

All information is carried on information carrying media. For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. For the information to change, additional heat must be used. And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used. Unfortunately, without a system in place to direct this energy, the energy will disperse in the path of least resistance; either destroying the system that directs it or building the information media in a place unlikely to follow the specified course required by evolution.

#34 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:22 PM

Uhm I think every single scientist ever would have to disagree with you.

I apologize, that was written poorly and in haste and I forgot to go back and finish that sentence. I meant to add to that line "The heat from the sun cannot supply the energy to do anything directly if it requires a mechanism to direct it".

... but I am saying that we are not a closed system, so you can't use it to discount evolution.

View Post

As we can predict what happens to hot pans on the table, which are not in a closed system, we can likewise predict what heat is required, where, for the mechanisms of evolution to work. We already know enough about it that we can conclude evolution's mechanism is as likely as a perpetual motion machine.

#35 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:54 PM

But the problem is, there is so many ways to find out how the Earth is...None of them date the Earth to 6,000 years old.


http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1969

Now I like the idea of 'information theory' but no one upholds to it, only creationists. If it was against information the majority of sciencetists would believe it.


Do you expect anyone besides Christians to believe Jesus was the Christ?
Just asking.

#36 Guest_solja247_*

Guest_solja247_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 11:40 PM

But if you do believe that then you would be a Theistic Evolutionist. There are quite a few on this board. You also have to take the view that Genesis 1&2 are not literal.


I dont believe so. Why cant one believe in evolution and creation. (of course one has to reject the evolution of ape to man).
For evolution to be accurate large amounts of time have to of happened. Radiometric dating shows the world is 4.5billion. Yet snow fall shows the wrold is about 140,000 years old. So which ones right. Evolutionists will say radiometric. Creationists will say snow fall is more accuarte.

Absolutely!

Peace


But its more like this.

(x = age of the Earth)
At x God created the world in 6 days. (after the fall) As time went by little to no evolution happened. The flood came and then much natural disasters. Since God's eye is on the sparrow He deicded to help some species. God changed the Genetics of elaphants (over a period of time) To Wolly Mamoths. I dont know.

When I say God used evolution, I mean that He used it personally.



Do you expect anyone besides Christians to believe Jesus was the Christ?
Just asking.


I dont see your point. Muslims believe in Jesus. Anyways. We are not talking about religion. We are talking about science. For it to be valid the majority of scientists should believe it to be unproven theory.

#37 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 01:41 AM

I dont believe so. Why cant one believe in evolution and creation. (of course one has to reject the evolution of ape to man).


If you believe in God and accept evolution you are a "theistic evolutionist" (aka "TE"). You can be a Christian TE, or a Muslim TE, or a Jewish TE, or a <insert whatever> TE. Most people here when they say TE usually mean a Christian TE unless otherwise stated. But even in the Christian sense you don't have to reject human evolution. I don't know of any TE that doesn't think we evolved like every other organism.

For evolution to be accurate large amounts of time have to of happened.


Before I continue, exactly what do you mean by "evolution"?

Radiometric dating shows the world is 4.5billion. Yet snow fall shows the wrold is about 140,000 years old. So which ones right. Evolutionists will say radiometric. Creationists will say snow fall is more accuarte.


How does snow fall show the world to be 140K yrs old? In any case, if you accept radiometric dating as accurate, and it dates a rock to 4.5 billion, doesn't that suggest that the rock really is that old and that there is another explanation as to why snow fall suggests a 140K yr old Earth?

As time went by little to no evolution happened. The flood came and then much natural disasters. Since God's eye is on the sparrow He deicded to help some species. God changed the Genetics of elaphants (over a period of time) To Wolly Mamoths. I dont know.
When I say God used evolution, I mean that He used it personally.


Are you suggesting that while every organism has mutations, God is only involved with a few of them? If so, I think you need to expand your idea of God. He is present everywhere, and sustains everything through His power; Yes I believe in interventions, but to say that God uses evolution personally (for me anyway in the way you said it) implies a distant God from His creation, and that is something I just do not see or believe. I apologize in advance if I got that wrong.

#38 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 26 February 2010 - 05:01 AM

Radiometric dating shows the world is 4.5billion. Yet snow fall shows the wrold is about 140,000 years old. So which ones right.


It doesn't show that it is only 140k years old....it shows that it is at least 140k years old...there is a difference.

Peace

#39 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 26 February 2010 - 08:02 PM

I dont see your point. Muslims believe in Jesus.

They see him as a prophet, not the Christ.


Anyways. We are not talking about religion. We are talking about science. For it to be valid the majority of scientists should believe it to be unproven theory.


Wrong. That's ad populum, a logical fallacy. If more people believe it, that doesn't make it right or wrong.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/ is a really good site that has a lot of answers to your questions. Just use the search.

#40 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 09:07 PM

All information is carried on information carrying media. For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. For the information to change, additional heat must be used. And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used. Unfortunately, without a system in place to direct this energy, the energy will disperse in the path of least resistance; either destroying the system that directs it or building the information media in a place unlikely to follow the specified course required by evolution.

View Post


Do books require heat???

The 2nd law says the integral of delta Q/T=-N. Apply that to evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users