Flynn McKerrow

You'd think that if it were submerged under salt water for a considerable period of time, that event would show up in the core sample.

Mageth

In addition to Methusela, there's a box huckleberry (in Pennsylvania, IIRC), that's estimated by some to be about 13,000 years old.

And then there's a King's Holly in Africa (apparently the only surviving member of its species) that's estimated to be 40,000+ years old by some scientists.

And creosote bushes growing in circular clusters in the Palm Springs desert are believed to be direct offshoots or 'clones' of a single individual; some of the rings are estimated at over 10,000 years old, with the oldest close to 12,000 years old.

See here for more info.

Bumble Bee Tuna

But guys, those plants were dated using conventional dating techniques, which can't be trusted, but only in a way that the superior intellect of a fundamentalist Christian can understand. For instance, Carbon dating can only work for up to 25,000 years! So they couldn't have used carbon dating to date these th...oh. I mean, carbon dating just plain doesn't work, because I don't like it!

Magus55

estimated, some scientists, about? What the heck, scientists can't agree on a age either, and I'm supposed to take all their findings on fact?

And whats your point about the tree on the mount Mageth? Alot of seeds could have survived the flood and been dispersed to different areas.

On to evidence. How do you account for a recent fossil find of land, sea, and lake creatures all piled up in a small area? Did they live together? Were they tree neighbors? And how did they get abruptly fossilized?

Or how about fluidisation pipes?

Or how about massive coal beds that we have never observed occur?

Or the cocinino sandstone of the Grand Canyon? Studies have been done examing the trackways of fossils that were imprinted in layers of the canyon, and matched with hundreds of animals movement and foot patterns, and scientists are quite convinced, the fossils in the layers of the Grand Canyon had to be made underwater, because there is no way the patterns fossilized could have been done on dry land.

Mageth

estimated, some scientists, about? What the heck, scientists can't agree on a age either, and I'm supposed to take all their findings on fact?

OK, this is pretty much pointless, obviously.
:banghead:

- It's hard to dispute the number of rings in a tree, as in Methuselah. It's solid evidence of the tree's age.

- Yes "estimated" and "about". The methods used for some dated produce approximate ages, not exact ages. Scientists can agree on the approximate ages, Magus.

- Yes, "some scientists". Yes, there is disagreement sometimes in science as to hypotheses, or, as in the case of the King's Holly, I suspect, a hypothesis has been proposed by some scientists that ALL scientists or even most scientists in the field haven't examined, so reserve judgment on. If further testing verifies the preliminary findings, and the findings are widely published, then the findings will likely gain wider acceptance. Even then, I wouldn't say all scientists agree on any scientific issue, since I do not have this knowledge; no one does.

Sheesh, you have no idea how science works, do you?

And odd for you to complain about that, what with the general lack of agreement among theists on many theological questions.

And whats your point about the tree on the mount Mageth? Alot of seeds could have survived the flood and been dispersed to different areas.

Well, seeing as the tree is at least 300 years older than your proposed date for the flood, and is growing on top of a 10,000-foot mountain that you claimed didn't exist before the flood (and at which altitude it, like some other plant species, is only found, throwing a bit of a wrench into your "no high mountain" argument), my point should be obvious.

And odd that bristlecone pine seeds were only dispersed by the global flood to a very small range in California/Nevada.

And then there are the 10000+ year old creosote bush rings and the other 10000+ year old plants, which, instead of providing counter-evidence for, you complain about their ages being scientifically estimated...Sheesh. :banghead:

Oh, and as to your other points, which I'm sure are cut-n-paste arguments off some other site, I'd recommend you post those in E&C if you're really interested in seeing the answers. This thread has gone far enough off track as is.

Flynn McKerrow

We aren't talking about seeds. We are talking about a tree that is older than the accepted date of the flood. Trees don't survive under water very well. Nor do they tolerate large climatic changes like you'd get from raising a mountain by 10000 feet.
***edited to remove stuff that isn't really relevant to this topic. Come to think of it, neither is all of this foolishness about a flood.***

Biff the unclean

We are also talking about Egyptians that...according to you...are older than God.:banghead:

Biff the unclean

Did we go down this side path because you wanted to avoid Easter being named for a Pagan Goddess?

Radorth

Oh come on orac. The guy is famous for changing the subject and asking rhetorical questions, like whether Easter was named for a Pagan god. We wised up last week if you have not.

I've already given a response to your other questions. You apparently disagree that even one mention of it in mid-first-century by a pagan is insufficient evidence. I think otherwise. It's far better evidence than the arguments from silence we've been hearing. You can't just say "well if it happened, so and so would have mentioned it." The event only lasted 3 hours, so it could have been an eclipse, an unusually thick cloud cover, or both. Again I ask. Did Pliny record every single eclipse or extraordinary weather pattern known to have occurred?

It's not like we are claiming the sun disappeared from the sky.

Rad

Magus55

Lol Mageth, frustrated much? Now you know how we feel trying to debate the Bible and theological concepts with people who have no desire whatsoever to ever accept it. Its like talking to a brick wall ( or some cases, an 8 ft steel wall ).

I did find it quite interesting though that after taking samples from Methusala, they found it to be only 1500 years old, and then assumed draught conditions meant the bigger portions of the tree were 3000 years older... What concise, undeniable evidence. Dang, who needs religion when you can discover trees with 3000 year gaps! It also mentioned the average tree is only 1000 years old in that area, with a few being 4000 years old. Since they originally messed up the dating, I'm sure its quite possible they misdated the couple that are said to be that old.

And how does that tree predate the flood? The flood, if 4400 years ago, means these trees didn't start growing until at least 400 years after the flood waters receded.