Dendrochronology: Getting at the root of the problem with a young earth

[Dee Dee Warren]

Unity is wonderful, but if it requires denying observational truth, I want nothing to do with it. But suit yourself Dee Dee, chose which you will.

I reject your false dilemna, but I have made it clear that I choose unity rather than siding with those who hate Christ to attack my brethren.

I am going to say something you might find offensive, but that is not my intent. I think your statement above has less to do with some committment to observational truth, then it has to do with your pride. Sowing unity even when you think your brethren are being idiots (I attend a futurist dispensational church and always have] is much more difficult than sowing divisiveness and rancor.

[grmorton]

I don't believe that belief in the resurrection is purely a matter of accepting observational data - i.e. I am not a pelagian, and neither are you, so I am not going to argue from a faulty and heretical premise. Scripture is my a priori and everything is in submission to it.

So, are you saying that it doesn't matter if the apostles smoked dope, or chewed betel and hallucinated the empty tomb? Scripture, may be your a priori, but the observation of the empty tomb is more a priori than your a prior!

[Dee Dee Warren]

So, are you saying that it doesn't matter if the apostles smoked dope, or chewed betel and hallucinated the empty tomb? Scripture, may be your a priori, but the observation of the empty tomb is more a priori than your a prior!

If you wish to interact with my statement I will respond, but that is ridiculous and disrespectful.

I am becoming more and more sympathetic to Jorge's complaints in this thread when I see how grossly you just misrepresented me. Seriously you ought to be ashamed.

[grmorton]

If you wish to interact with my statement I will respond, but that is ridiculous and disrespectful.

I love how it is always someone else's fault but never yours. I did interact with your statement. My position is that if observation can't be trusted, the resurrection can't be trusted either because the disciples OBSERVED an empty tomb. By denying MN it implicitely denies observation, because MN assumes that our observations are capable of being true. If God fiddles with crimes, or with the vision of the disciples, then we can't trust observation. If we can't trust observation, we can't trust the most important observation which is that of the empty tomb.

If you would but follow the logic, you would find I am not disrespectful.

I am becoming more and more sympathetic to Jorge's complaints in this thread when I see how grossly you just misrepresented me. Seriously you ought to be ashamed.

Frankly, Dee Dee, you got your nose out of joint before this exchange and are now taking it out on me. That is your modus operandi. Which is why I knew I would regret trying to engage with you! That is why I made that statement.

You may have the last word. I'm out of here.

[shunyadragon]

Did you even read what I said? I said that the time frames could be different than Bishop Ussher said. If that was the case, then, even if you have 10,000 years of perfect dendrochronology, the Flood still could have happened before then...

Keep stretching it back and and you will become OEC. If you keep juggling and cooking the time of the BOOK and fiddling with the text, you will no longer be literal or presuppositional, so why bother. You will also end up on Jorge's hit list.

[MrManNo1]

Keep stretching it back and and you will become OEC. If you keep juggling and cooking the time of the BOOK and fiddling with the text, you will no longer be literal or presuppositional, so why bother.

I fail to see how doubling or tripling the genealogies would make me an OEC. And, show me where I fiddled with the text. It is somewhat common knowledge that Israelites tended to do genealogies in groups of 10, where they would omit less-than-important persons. I'm not a "the text is always 100% literal" YEC, so I realize that the times will not be perfectly accurate. For that to be the case, the Bible would have to go into lengthy, unnecessary treatises on what, exactly, God means by the times He gives each time He gives one. The Bible isn't for God to clarify what He said in the Bible. That's for us to do.

Now, respond as to why the Flood couldn't have happened before 10,000 years ago, please.

[shunyadragon]

I fail to see how doubling or tripling the genealogies would make me an OEC. And, show me where I fiddled with the text. It is somewhat common knowledge that Israelites tended to do genealogies in groups of 10, where they would omit less-than-important persons. I'm not a "the text is always 100% literal" YEC, so I realize that the times will not be perfectly accurate. For that to be the case, the Bible would have to go into lengthy, unnecessary treatises on what, exactly, God means by the times He gives each time He gives one. The Bible isn't for God to clarify what He said in the Bible. That's for us to do.

Now, respond as to why the Flood couldn't have happened before 10,000 years ago, please.

Well, ah . . . beside there being no evidence for a global flood at any time in recent or geologic history, humanity before 10,000 years ago was only Paleolithic cultures hardly able to build anything much larger than a dugout canoe.

If you want to consider regional flood memories or asteroid impact tidal wave memories, okay maybe, but your drifting more and more to accepting the scientific view of human history symbolically represented in the myth and legends recording first in the early Babylonian tales from oral traditions.

[MrManNo1]

Well, ah . . . beside there being no evidence for a global flood at any time in recent or geologic history,

I disagree. I would argue that polystrate trees are a good reason to cast some doubt on the uniformitarian geologic layering concept.

humanity before 10,000 years ago was only Paleolithic cultures hardly able to build anything much larger than a dugout canoe.

This presupposes that a global flood did not happen to prove that a global flood did not happen. I disagree with the concept that ancients were idiots, and I believe there is adequate evidence to show that they are not.

If you want to consider regional flood memories or asteroid impact tidal wave memories, okay maybe, but your drifting more and more to accepting the scientific view of human history symbolically represented in the myth and legends recording first in the early Babylonian tales from oral traditions.

I fail to see how adding a few thousand years makes me some sort of compromiser. I still do not accept most uniformitarian ideas. I just accept that it was custom for the Israelites to not include all possible ancestors in their genealogy.

[Tiggy]

Did you even read what I said? I said that the time frames could be different than Bishop Ussher said. If that was the case, then, even if you have 10,000 years of perfect dendrochronology, the Flood still could have happened before then...

Now you're distorting scripture too!!

You...you...GOD-HATER!!



How can you stand it Jorge, with all the God-haters voicing their own twisted and distorted interpretation of the inerrant word of the Lord that's different from the Jorge Fernandez personal interpretation?

- T

[rogue06]

I disagree. I would argue that polystrate trees are a good reason to cast some doubt on the uniformitarian geologic layering concept.

Polystrate trees are no problem for geologists to explain whatsoever. If you're interested I can explain in more detail, but suffice it for now to say that you're knoweledge about geology and uniformitarianism appears to be severely dated. As for any geologic evidence for a global flood... I'm sorry to say that there really is none. Decades before Darwin ever published his ideas on evolution, geologists set out to find the "Flood Layers." Many of these men were also members of the clergy. What they found wasn't what they expected. What they found was evidence for an ancient earth everywhere they looked, but no evidence for a global flood. Since then about 200 years have passed and nothing has changed. Still no evidence for a global flood and more and more evidence in support of an ancient earth.

[MrManNo1]

Polystrate trees are no problem for geologists to explain whatsoever. If you're interested I can explain in more detail, but suffice it for now to say that you're knoweledge about geology and uniformitarianism appears to be severely dated. As for any geologic evidence for a global flood... I'm sorry to say that there really is none. Decades before Darwin ever published his ideas on evolution, geologists set out to find the "Flood Layers." Many of these men were also members of the clergy. What they found wasn't what they expected. What they found was evidence for an ancient earth everywhere they looked, but no evidence for a global flood. Since then about 200 years have passed and nothing has changed. Still no evidence for a global flood and more and more evidence in support of an ancient earth.

I would like a more detailed explanation, because the explanation I found was, in fact, not an explanation.

[rogue06]

I would like a more detailed explanation, because the explanation I found was, in fact, not an explanation.

Gotta go to bed but here's a link for now:
Polystrate" Fossils
Let me know if it addresses any of your questions or objections. Of course, it might be the one you already read. 'Night

[MrManNo1]

Gotta go to bed but here's a link for now:
Polystrate" Fossils
Let me know if it addresses any of your questions or objections. Of course, it might be the one you already read. 'Night

Actually, it reinforced my opinion. I'll respond to each of the three arguments the author makes near the end.

The first argument is that the fossils aren't all found on one single level of the Geologic Column. Some are from the Devonian Period, well before the dinosaurs. Some were buried long after the dinosaurs went extinct. This is what you would expect if each burial was caused by a small, local event. And, there are differences, depending on where they are found. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks, and cypress trees aren't found below the Cretaceous Period. The same comment applies to their leaves and spores and pollen. But this is exactly what you would not expect if a single, global flood had washed over them. Surely the flood would have ripped many trees up, and dropped them elsewhere. Or if not the trees, at least the pollen.

This logic presumes that Geologic columns are accurate portrayals of the history of the earth, which isn't a valid defense against YEC, who don't accept that. In addition, why would the trees and pollen be required to move massive distances? No YEC I'm aware of has made this claim.

The second argument is that some upright fossils were transported to where they are now. Others are clearly still in place (in situ), because they are still rooted into a fossilized soil. The transported trees have had their root systems ripped, but the in situ trees still have the small, fine rootlets in place. It does not seem possible for a single global event to transport some trees and not others.

Why doesn't it seem possible? Some trees are rooted better than others. That doesn't mean that the Global Flood idea is wrong.

The third argument is that there are some upright trees which are on top of other upright trees. We know that the upper tree grew after the lower one was buried, because the uppper tree is clearly in situ.

This isn't really an argument, simply an observation. First, there is no reason to assume that the trees weren't buried on top of one another. Nothing in my model disallows this. Second, so what? Local floods could have occurred after the Global Flood. No YEC believes that floods don't happen anymore.

I hope you have a better explanation than this, because this was inadequate (although it's better than the first article I read...at least it addresses the fossils...)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now you're distorting scripture too!!

You...you...GOD-HATER!!



How can you stand it Jorge, with all the God-haters voicing their own twisted and distorted interpretation of the inerrant word of the Lord that's different from the Jorge Fernandez personal interpretation?

- T

Why do you continue to make blatantly false misrepresentations Tiggy? Are you really made that insecure by Jorge?

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, it reinforced my opinion. I'll respond to each of the three arguments the author makes near the end.



This logic presumes that Geologic columns are accurate portrayals of the history of the earth, which isn't a valid defense against YEC, who don't accept that. In addition, why would the trees and pollen be required to move massive distances? No YEC I'm aware of has made this claim.



Why doesn't it seem possible? Some trees are rooted better than others. That doesn't mean that the Global Flood idea is wrong.



This isn't really an argument, simply an observation. First, there is no reason to assume that the trees weren't buried on top of one another. Nothing in my model disallows this. Second, so what? Local floods could have occurred after the Global Flood. No YEC believes that floods don't happen anymore.

I hope you have a better explanation than this, because this was inadequate (although it's better than the first article I read...at least it addresses the fossils...)

I think it will come down to being inadequate because you don't fully understand the implications of what is being discussed. This is often the case on this topic, and it makes discussion difficult if the lesser educated is convinced of their intellectual superiority. I will let rogue fill in the details - but please, try to realize you may not fully understand this topic and try to understand what he says to you before you place your mind in 'rebuttal' mode.


Jim