Apologies if this has already been covered, as I've only skimmed the second half of the thread...
From the link in the OP, #11: "The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years."
It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ”Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years.
This tree’s ”ring’ age is close to the Biblical date for the globe-covering and life-destroying Flood of Noah (Genesis 6-8) of around 4,500 years ago
Actually,
AIG places the flood at 2304 BC, which means it occurred roughly 4,300 years ago, so in this instance alone we have roughly 423 extra "rings" to account for.
There should be no trees aliveon(sic) Earth today which are older than the Flood
Well, this particular Bristlecone Pine disproves that statement, but there was another cut down in 1964 which was even older, at
4,862 years old
God’s judgment on sin was in the form of a global watery catastrophe which destroyed all air-breathing land vertebrates except for those whom God lovingly preserved on the Ark.
God's judgments on sin. Last I checked, only "humans with souls" could sin, therefore there's absolutely no reason to kill all the
other animals, eh? Also, it's good to know that God's judgment on sin had no effect on non-air breathing vertebrates, or for that matter, all invertebrates, including all viruses that have no-doubt "coveted thy neighbor", if you know what I mean.
A flood cataclysm of this magnitude... would have ensured that no trees alive at that time would have remained growing in place. So no tree growing today could have started growing from a seed in that spot more than about 4,500 years ago.
Correct. However, both trees mentioned above were already growing before "about" 4,500 years ago, by at least some 220-odd years.
(ABE: As previously stated, "about" 4,500 years ago is likely closer to 4,300 years ago, according to AIG, thus both trees were already growing roughly 420-odd years before "the flood".)
It is normally assumed that for each year of growth, one growth ring will be shown. This is generally true; however, it is a demonstrable fact that in years of good growth, i.e. moist, warm conditions, more than one growth ring can readily occur. Research has actually demonstrated this with Bristlecone Pine seedlings.
This from here, "The dendrochronological check on radiocarbon dating is not without its own problems, the main one being that some species of trees may, under certain climatic conditions such as late frost, produce more than one ring per year [Glock and Agerter, 1963]. Fortunately, however, this has been "extremely rare" in the carefully checked history of bristlecone pines [Ferguson, 1968, p.840]."
By supplementing the ”normal’ winter day length with a heat lamp, extra rings were able to be grown.(
link to footnote)
In the footnote, it discusses Bristlecone Pines and the effect of warming lamps and/or fluorescent lights in greenhouse conditions. At the end of the second paragraph, it states: "Those plants grown outdoors had a growth rate only a fraction of those grown in the greenhouse.", which I'm sure is a surprise to everyone. /sarcasm.
In the presumed warm, moist and changing seasonal conditions in the first few centuries after Noah’s Flood, it is likely that there would have been quite a few such extra rings.
It's interesting that something "presumed", as if reasonably accepted by most, wouldn't include a footnote for supporting evidence.
Maybe I'm missing something, and hopefully someone here can help me out. Is there any reason, that after the waters of a global flood have dried out/vanished, that the climate would be warm and moist, and the seasonal conditions would be "changing"?
Edited by losetheclub, : Too much blood in caffeine system, I missed something.
Edited by losetheclub, : fixed a link
™ Version 4.2
