Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Use of Science to Support Creationism
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 122 (107292)
05-10-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 4:11 PM


Re: Plenty of Evidence?
Ok then will do. Just have patience for my posting suspension to be lifted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 122 (107301)
05-11-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 4:11 PM


Re: Plenty of Evidence?
You just said that theres nothing that cannot stand against scrutiny. But this is the same with evolution. They cannot prove the age. Especially not to 4 billion yrs. All this is necessary for evolution to have occured. Are you saying the age of the earth is fact or do you acknowledge they needed to interpret the evidence a little bit to get such an exessive age?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:11 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 12:23 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 12:53 AM almeyda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 122 (107306)
05-11-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by almeyda
05-11-2004 12:10 AM


Can you see stars?
How far away do you think the stars might be?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 12:10 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 122 (107310)
05-11-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by almeyda
05-11-2004 12:10 AM


Interpretation.
Are you saying the age of the earth is fact or do you acknowledge they needed to interpret the evidence a little bit to get such an exessive age?.
I have a tree in my back yard. I've had it there for a decade and notice that it drops a thick layer of leaves every fall. Some layers are deeper than others depending on the summers weather but each year there is a layer of leaves. Each spring it drops a bunch of seed pods and they make a thin layer. This has gone on for 10 years.
One year I dig a rather deep hole for a new fish pond. It cuts down vertically under the tree on one edge. When I'm done I realize that I can see the layers the tree has dropped for the recent 10 years. The leaves make a compact layer with no clear pieces. The spring layer however, shows up as having lots of bits in it the stems and pods that held seeds.
When I'm finished digging I count the alternating layers of spring and fall traces and find that there are over 80 clearly marked layers. Near the bottom they start to fade out with less and less deposited. I conclude that sometime over 80 years ago the tree grew big enough to drop leaves over where I have dug and was big enough to leave a clear layer.
Have I interpreted what I have found? Yes. Was I there for the whole 80 years? No. Would I be considered foolish to draw the conclusions I have? Well, maybe. Have I considered any other alternative explanation? Do I have any independent way of checking?
I then core the tree and find that the tree rings give an age of 93 years and there seems to be some correlation with thicker rings and deeper fall layers. Do I have a better reason for believing that I understand what has happened in the decades before I got here?
What do you think?
We have the same thing with a variety of dating methods. But we have not a couple of different ways of counting "layers" we have many. We have historiacl markers placed in what we are counting. (It's like someone carved a heart into the tree with a year in it and we can slice a bit out of the tree, read the year and see what layers grew over it.)
Under these circumstances we are "interpreting" the data. But you would look foolish indeed if you disagreed with me while not having any alternative explanation yourself that could explain everything I can see.
What would you conclude?
The age determinations have much, much more reason to be accepted than my simple little example. We may not have the exact, precise, spot-on number of years for the age of the earth. But we are only out a few percent.
For 6,000 years to be correct we have to be out by 10's of MILLIONs of percent. It is a fact that we are not out that much.
The half-assed attempts to tackle the measurements are about as foolish as someone saying that a tree down the street from mine didn't produce any seeds for two years in a row. Therefor my count may be wrong and the tree is only 12 years old not 80+. And I mean this as an analogy that is no more stupid than the AIG and others answers for dating methodolgies.
Have you read over the threads in Dates and Dating? Especially the one discussion correlations? Do you understand what it is saying?
The AIG material can't stand up to reasonably simple scrutiny. The age of the earth has been through a simply huge amount of scrutiny and stands up very well, thank you very much.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 11:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 12:10 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:15 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 122 (107326)
05-11-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 12:53 AM


Re: Interpretation.
I once read that no tree is older than 5,000yrs is this true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 12:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:16 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 122 (107327)
05-11-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:15 AM


Re: Interpretation.
Im not allowed to edit..I meant to write 10,000yrs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:15 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 3:02 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 3:03 AM almeyda has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 52 of 122 (107343)
05-11-2004 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:16 AM


Re: Interpretation.
On trees older than 10,000 years...
It depends what you mean by "tree". The bristlecone pines are often cited as the oldest living trees. They are up to 4,700 years old.
On the other hand, some trees can be much older than this, in cases where the organism sends out repeated shoots, rather than living with a single trunk for all its life. Whether this represents one individual or not is debatable. Scientists mostly seem to regard these examples as legitimately one individual, from one continuously living root system.
In any case the age itself is not disputed by such questions.
For a long time (from about 1980 until fairly recently) the oldest individual was considered to be "King Clone", a creosote bush in the Mojave Desert, which is around 11,700 years old. See Creosote Bush (Larrea divaricata or tridentata) and many other similar pages on-line. This picture (from an amateur photo tour) may not be the King Clone itself (which is not marked, for conservation reasons I guess) but it gives an idea of what they look like.
More recently, a new record breaker is an individual of "King's lomatia" in Tasmania, which is around 43,000 years old. See King's lomatia - the Oldest Plant Clone in the World?, and many similar pages on the web.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:16 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 122 (107344)
05-11-2004 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:16 AM


Oldest tree
The oldest living tree is about 4,700 years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:16 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 122 (107349)
05-11-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 3:03 AM


Re: Oldest tree
Billions of yrs with no trees? Thats a bit odd? I would have thought trees evolved early on with plants or whatever im not upto date with what evolved 1st or 2nd but i thought nature was up there with the rest of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 3:03 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 3:26 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 56 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 9:16 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 57 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 10:24 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 58 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 10:28 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 60 by Gary, posted 05-11-2004 12:10 PM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 55 of 122 (107350)
05-11-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Oldest tree
almeyda writes:
Billions of yrs with no trees? Thats a bit odd? I would have thought trees evolved early on with plants or whatever im not upto date with what evolved 1st or 2nd but i thought nature was up there with the rest of it.
Could you please share with the rest of us how you came to that conclusion based on what people have already said on the matter?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 56 of 122 (107396)
05-11-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Oldest tree
Billions of yrs with no trees? Thats a bit odd? I would have thought trees evolved early on with plants or whatever im not upto date with what evolved 1st or 2nd but i thought nature was up there with the rest of it.
"The oldestt living tree" is not "the oldest tree".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 122 (107415)
05-11-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:18 AM


Not just no trees, but NO Grass
is actually fairly recent. For many Billions of years there were no Grasses.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 58 of 122 (107419)
05-11-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Oldest tree
but i thought nature was up there with the rest of it.
Almeyda, you're priceless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 11:01 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 122 (107432)
05-11-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Jack
05-11-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Oldest tree
lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 10:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 122 (107454)
05-11-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by almeyda
05-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Oldest tree
Plants and animals both evolved together, but that doesn't mean trees have been around just as long as animals were.
Plants evolved over hundreds of millions of years, originally descending from green algae. There used to be, and still are, many types of green algae. The ones living on shorelines had to adapt to the more extreme climate, since they would be exposed to more light, heat, and dryness than normal seaweed. These plants evolved into the ones we have growing on land today, including trees.
Early land plants were probably bryophytes, nonvascular mosses and lichens, and later on, ferns. Most of our oil comes from various ferns and related plants that prospered during the Carboniferous period. From these, conifers evolved, and from those, angiosperms (flowering plants) evolved, about 125 million years ago. Many plants coevolved with animals (flowers and bees, for example) or with other life forms such as fungi (lichen).
Here is some information on plant evolution:
Curricular Resources
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3060.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024