FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-31-2002, 02:46 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 762
Talking Bush Offers Disproof Of Young-Earth Creationism

Bush hasn't said much since his election on this topic. Given that he's rather fundamentalist in other aspects, I would imagine many of the regulars in this forum were dreading his first statement on the subject, such as that he didn't "believe" in "evil-ution" or some other such drivel.

But Bush has come right out and disproven a long-standing young-earth creationist "nyah nyah": Sure, there might be fossils and things that appear to be over seven thousand years old, but where is a living thing that old? How come all the oldest living things (ie bristlecone pines) are younger than the supposed date of creation? Of course, this has nothing to do with the process of the diversification and development of life through descent with modification, but by severely limiting the earth's age, evolution cannot have produced the diversity that we now see.

Well, no longer, as <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1551158p-1627551c.html" target="_blank">Bush has disproven this YEC assertion of the age of the Earth.</a> May the Invisible Pink Unicorn bless him.
Kevin Dorner is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 03:34 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,427
Talking

[Ken Ham] Were you there when the bush was born? [/Ken Ham]
bluefugue is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 05:13 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want
Posts: 4,871
Question

So, um, are plants essentially immortal?
GunnerJ is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 07:53 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 376
Post

Just for the record, George Bush is on record as saying both Creationism and evolution are valid (he's an equal timer).
Someone7 is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 06:10 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,198
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Someone7:
<strong>Just for the record, George Bush is on record as saying both Creationism and evolution are valid (he's an equal timer).</strong>

True, but if I had a penny for everytime Dubya said something that made him sound like an idiot, I'd be a wealthy man.

&lt;rimshot!&gt;

--W@L
Writer@Large is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 03:27 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lincoln, England
Posts: 1,499
Exclamation

They should name it 'treebeard'.
Huginn is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 03:49 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,535
Question

Quote:
Radiocarbon tests now under way may reveal the unassuming creosote bush sprouted 11,000 or more years ago, the scientist said
Could our scientifical friends explain to me how you conduct radiocarbon tests on a living organism? (Granted, the article says the bush is "more dead than alive," but still...)
Grumpy is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 04:02 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 762
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
<strong>Could our scientifical friends explain to me how you conduct radiocarbon tests on a living organism? (Granted, the article says the bush is "more dead than alive," but still...)</strong>
I know for trees that only the outermost layers of the trunk and branches are alive; the core heartwood is dead. So a core sample could be taken with a special drill and the centre of the sample (the oldest part) radiocarbon dated.
Kevin Dorner is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 10:19 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,535
Post

Not knowing much about the technique, Kevin, I'd be concerned about contamination from the living tissue. However, I am aware that any such contamination would result in a younger age.

Basically, I'm trying to rule out whether the Sacramento Bee article improperly used the term "radiocarbon tests" if some other technique was in fact used.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>
Grumpy is offline  
Old 02-03-2002, 03:27 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Baulkham Hills, New South Wales,Australia
Posts: 944
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
<strong>Not knowing much about the technique, Kevin, I'd be concerned about contamination from the living tissue. However, I am aware that any such contamination would result in a younger age.

Basically, I'm trying to rule out whether the Sacramento Bee article improperly used the term "radiocarbon tests" if some other technique was in fact used.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</strong>
The radiocarbon dating people go to what looks to me extreme lengths to ensure that there is no contamination.

However, I have a vague suspicion that the trees were dated by dendrochronology, which is a far more accurate dating method (let's face it, it's just counting) and that the results were used to calibrate the radiocarbon dates.
KeithHarwood is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.