Well, don't get too cocky, after all, how many facts does man have the power to review, or even access to??
Enough to know that the earth is old, way older than is presented in this museum as fact or true. That alone means that this museum is LYING about the truth, which should be one reason sufficient to stay away from it.
Message 101 No worries, I am aware of the limitations of this part of the forum, and plan to act accordingly.
Message 102 (I will remind people that I wanted this in the coffee house, someone bumped it here, don't blame me)
whatever, Keys
This is some of the biblical related content to what is in the museum.
So that is part of the dioramas used to portray parts of the bible: where is the scientific evidence that says it could be possible?
Where is the scientific evidence in this museum or is it all make believe interpretations of the bible? If the later then it is more related to an amusement park than a museum.
OK, so, are you suggesting that the more important aspects of what the creation museum covers, that are not limitable to science somehow should not have been bumped here??
Let's start with the scientific stuff: if what the museum shows in these catagories are lies then the museum cannot be trusted as a valid source of information -- no matter what the subject is.
The museum states that the earth is young: this is a lie. The museum states that the grand canyon was formed by the flood: this is a lie. The museum states that T.rex was a herbivore at some time: this is a lie.
Therefore the museum cannot be trusted as a source of truth. You are better off going elsewhere for your "more important aspects" to places that respect the truth.
Message 119 Care to stop advertising other thread? I have NO interest in what you want to define as science, or posting in a kangaroo court set up I feel is extremely biased.
Whatever.
What you really have is nothing but attitude. Certainly no argument.
No, let's not. The more important part of creation museums is God, and miracles, and things of a spirit nature. Let us start there. It's my thread, I set the rules. Maybe I should bump it to faith and belief.
In other words you are scared of the truth and like to have your particular faith catered to by any unscrupulous cad. No matter what it costs you. Certainly you don't need to discuss this pathetic excuse for a museum to talk about those other issues, and at least then you can base it on a better foundation.
Quite your whining and grow an integrity meter. "Faith and Belief" forum would still mean that you should still deal with honesty and integrety.
The "Methusulah" specimen (estimated germination 2832 BC) was cut down in 1957, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,839 years (in 2007 ... and counting). See 'Wikipedia: Methuselah Tree" for additional information on this one tree.
quote:Prometheus (aka WPN-114) is the nickname given to the oldest non-clonal organism ever known, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree about 4900 years old growing at treeline on a mountain in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was cut down on August 6, 1964 by a graduate student and U.S. Forest Service personnel for research purposes, though at the time they did not know of its world-record age.
That makes the minimum age of the earth (and the earliest date for a global flood) 4,900 years old.
So you admit this tree is not really related to the museum. OK.
No, read again: it has to do with the age of the earth and the global flood parts of the displays.
I don't want to engage you in your claims on a science forum here, because it allows no freedom, and is biased.
It allows the freedom of truth and reality as opposed to the shackles of ignorance, expecially when willfully donned.
The ability of science to detect anything is limited by what it's abilities to detect anything are.
You like tautologies? Science increases it's ability to detect reality every year, as the walls of ignorance crumble. It is certainly able to detect that the earth is old, very old, at least 4.55 years old. Ability to detect the age of the earth older than that is limited by the limitations of evidence: this does not mean that what it can detect is not valid.
Actually that is very very easy to do, but not in the science forums here. That would be like playing with a stacked deck, and only half of it at that.
Another unfounded bald assertion, sounds like a bluff to me.
It seems you are the one that is demonstrating an inability to do just that. The fact is, I am not going to debate science under your kangaroo court setup here. The fact also is that the exhibit I talked about, you have not addressed.
Yet I am the only one of the two of us that has posted a single fact to substantiate their argument. I present evidence and you reject and deny it, so in that aspect it is a kangaroo court, just that you are the kangaroo jumping anywhere but where the evidence leads.
quote:Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating is the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree-ring growth patterns. This technique was invented and developed during the 20th century originally by A. E. Douglass, the founder of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. The technique can date wood to exact calendar years.
To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known.
A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).
quote:Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are hard. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates (e.g. MBH98, Moberg05).
From the two trees previously mentioned plus remnant pieces of dead wood surrounding them the chronology of the Bristle Cone Pines in the Sierra Nevada show an overall age of the earth of over 8500 years with no global flood possible in that time as all the sample overlapped periods of time when they were living. These trees also provide climate data in the rings, climate data that ensures the overlapped specimen are correctly alligned.
Bottom line: a 6,000 year old earth that experienced a global flood within those 6,000 years is a falsified concept, invalidated by the evidence of one species of tree, one part of gods creation. Thus the claims of the museum are false the displays of age and global flood are lies.
And we are again at the point where you either acknowledge the reality of the facts or you reject them in favor of denial, preferring delusions:
™ Version 4.2
